When political correctness substitutes for science, the results are sure to be illogical.  Global warming is an outcome in search of a cause — a solution in search of a problem.  The pre-ordained outcome is government control and taxation (or shutdown) of all industrial activity.  So now, the search is on for any evidence, real or imaginary, that industrial activity is harmful to the environment.  So far, the only "proof" of future warming has come from computer generated forecasts, which can be easily manipulated to show just about anything.

It is my opinion, based on the material cited below, as well as my years of careful observation (of the news media, not the weather) that the entire "global warming problem" is a rather transparent hoax.  The forces of nature are hundreds of times more powerful than the influence of human activity, so if there is to be any warming or cooling, it will almost certainly be the result of a change in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, or other natural phenomena.  And whatever the cause, the amount of warming that has occurred is not enough to warrant any action, even if there were any action to take.

The debate over global warming is driven by those who make their decisions based upon other people's emotional outbursts, TV sound bites and bumper stickers, rather than rational thinking.  The people who are most upset about global warming are the people who don't believe that God created the heavens and the earth.  (Ironically, these are some of the same people who teach "survival of the fittest" in the public schools.)  The earth was designed and built by someone who still has his hand on the thermostat to this day.  If that is not true, and we merely evolved into what we are today, then we have no choice but to continue evolving and adapting when the temperature goes up or down.

The primary "greenhouse gases" are carbon dioxide and water vapor.  CO2 is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all living things benefit from having more of it.  The same is true of water vapor.  Carbon dioxide is actually good for the forests, grasslands and other vegetation.  When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.  All life on earth is carbon-based and carbon dioxide is an essential ingredient in our environment.  It is not a pollutant.

Without the greenhouse effect, the earth's average temperature would be below zero on the Fahrenheit scale.  Several atmospheric gases are responsible for the greenhouse effect, not just CO2.  Between 94 and 98 percent of the warming effect is due to ordinary water vapor, which comes from the oceans and lakes, and therefore cannot be controlled or regulated by any government action.  Next in importance are carbon dioxide and methane.  Man-made emissions are responsible for less than 3 percent of the total emissions, according to the US Energy Information Administration.  (See page 18 of this document.)

On the average, the earth radiates exactly as much energy out into space every night as it absorbed from the sun the previous day.  The "greenhouse effect" keeps us from freezing at night and roasting during the day.  The "greenhouse effect" is a wonderful thing, and I'm all for it.

The output power of the sun — the source of almost all the earth's warmth — is variable.  Variations in solar activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperature.  To put it another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing carbon dioxide may be effects and our own sun the cause.

Occasionally you may hear of a press release declaring the previous year to be the "hottest year on record."  The inept news media distribute these stories and the poorly-educated masses generally believe them.  However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading.  The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have shown no warming year after year.

Accurate widespread temperature records at ground level have been kept for only about 100 years.  Weather observations in most cities are made at the airport(s), where nobody lives, and where there is more concrete than grass, and generally no trees.

One of the national news media's pet projects is the campaign to convince everyone that the Earth is warming up rapidly, that human activity is to blame, that a disaster is imminent, and that only the U.S. government can solve the problem by controlling every aspect of industry and transportation.  So it's not about protecting the environment as much as it is about strengthening the grip of the federal government and alarming the public into greater dependence on both the news media and the federal government.

More than that, it's about taxation.  The government can go through the motions of "regulating" carbon dioxide emissions, but in reality it's just another tax.

Hollywood "celebrities" occasionally make rash pronouncements about global warming and other environmental issues, but actors are not scientists, and their opinions should carry no more weight than anyone else's.

If you spend ten minutes researching on the internet and another five minutes with a calculator (as I did), you'll discover that the energy received by the earth from the sun every day is 10,982 times greater than all the energy produced by man.  The heat we generate is just a drop in a very large bucket.

Really?  Yes.
The amount of solar energy received by the earth is 174 Petawatts, or 174 x 10^15 watts.  One watt of power applied for one second is one joule.  There are 31,557,600 seconds in the average year (365.25 days x 86,400 seconds per day).  Therefore the earth receives 5,491 x 10^21 joules per year from the sun.  In 2005, total worldwide energy consumption (= production) was 5 x 10^20 Joules.  That's a ratio of 10,982-to-1.

Even if the dire predictions of one degree of warming per century are accurate, the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would only have a negligible effect on the global climate.  At the same time, they would collapse our economy and bring industrial activity to a halt — and the warming most likely would continue, because warming and cooling are natural processes.  Temperatures rise and fall constantly, and all we can do is adapt.

The global warming hoax/fad is over, and in retrospect it appears to have been a massive case of monkey-see-monkey-do on the part of the so-called news media.  Local news reporters get their information from national wire services, and rarely if ever question anything the big city newspapers say, especially if the misinformation is in agreement with the reporters' favorite magazines and web sites.  Local TV reporters are generally ashamed to discuss anything scientific or technical except in the most superficial terms.  They refrain from the use of words with more than three syllables, because they don't want to alienate their viewers.  And most of all, they refuse to test or contradict government pronouncements.

Spinoff pages and subcategories:

Overviews of the Global Warming hoax / fad

There is no global warming:  Warming has stopped, and there are reports of record snowfall, unusual icing and brutally cold weather.

Evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the facts  about global warming, also known as ClimateGate.

The United Nations IPCC Report on Global Warming

Carbon offsets, carbon credits, and emissions trading, also known as cap-and-trade.

Coal  is being regulated into oblivion because environmentalists hate capitalism.

Global Warming is Blamed for Everything.  One degree per century is not enough warming to cause any of the many crises that are being blamed on global warming.

Conversely, everything causes global warming  ... or so the news media would have you believe.

Greenhouse Gases:  Carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and more.
    ... including assertions that cows and termites produce more CO2 than man,
    ... and so do volcanoes.

Silencing the Skeptics:
    If someone make a statement and then declares "the debate is over", then it wasn't a debate.

Solar Activity and Other Natural Causes of Global Warming
    ... including a section about simultaneous warming on Mars.

Are 100-year forecasts possible when five-day forecasts are not?

Many global warming alarmists are the same people who once predicted an ice age.

One or two degrees of global warming would benefit everyone, because more people die from the effects of cold weather than hot weather.

Environmental Propaganda Movie Reviews — Happy Feet, Hoot, The 11th Hour, the new Muppet movie, Cars 2, Avatar, The Lorax, Wall-E, The Day After Tomorrow, and especially An Inconvenient Truth.  Make no mistake -- these are propaganda films.

The  Political Opportunism  and  Irrational Zeal  of global warming alarmists.

There is plenty of reasonable doubt about global warming.
    The general public is becoming more skeptical
    Czech President Vaclav Klaus is a notable dissenter.
    What consensus?
    Inaccurate measurements
    NOAA and NASA have been cookin' the books!
    Flawed computer models

More subtopics, sidetracks and distractions:
    Polar Bears
    Polar Ice
    Glaciers
    The Catlin Expedition
    Rising Sea Levels
    Hurricane numbers and intensity
    Ocean acidification and the coral reef scare
    Proposed solutions that are sure to be worse than the problem
    Al Gore

Other Global Warming Discussions  that include the words hoax, fraud, swindle, scam, lies, scare tactic, myth, hype, and hysteria.

Environmentalists Oppose Every Practical Source of Energy

Leftover Topics — Scraps, clutter and noise left over from this page, including a section about the hypocrisy of eco-celebrities.

The Gore Effect

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act

The Kyoto Climate Control Protocol

The Copenhagen Climate Conference of 2009

The Cancun Climate Conference of 2010

"While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

- Genesis 8:22  

Confected emergencies and the new world order.  The "climate emergency" hypothesis is simply stated.  We observe large variations in the weather in the short term, and even larger variations in the climate in the long term.  Is that variation natural, or can it be explained only by the relatively insignificant emission of a waste gas produced by our energy system?  If it can, then we may have a big problem.  But, until a few years ago, that hypothesis was thought widely to be eccentric and impossible to prove.  The big problem then was believed to be the imminent return to an ice age.

The Zenith of the Green New Scam.  The computerized climate models from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and other institutions laid the "scientific" foundation for the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory that has led to the subsequent 30+ years of climate hysteria and a politicization of the study of the weather and climate in general.  The result has been a cottage industry of academics, nonprofits, captured journalists, and political scientists (NOT physical scientists), and government actors who have collectively produced evermore extreme claims of impending disasters due to "man-caused climate change." Various governments have used these disaster scenarios to gin up support for radical policies to drastically alter energy production and use in their respective countries through massive subsidies of so-called "clean energy" and "green technology," as well as regulations aimed at "ending the use of fossil [sic] fuels."  It took a few years, but the "green blob" finally settled on manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) as the main culprit, and climate extremists and their allies in government have been railing about the need to rapidly transition to non-CO2-producing energy sources to "save the planet" from impending climate-driven catastrophes.

Climate change is NOT a public health issue.  The belief that human CO2 emissions cause climate change has three hypotheses:
  [#1]   Our CO2 emissions cause the CO2 increase.
  [#2]   The CO2 increase causes temperature increase.
  [#3]   Temperature increase causes bad stuff to happen.
Climate alarmists ASSUME these three hypotheses are true, and incorrectly conclude that bad stuff proves their belief is true.  Their logic is circular.  Effects do NOT prove their cause.  The scientific method says it is impossible to prove a hypothesis is true, but only one false prediction proves a hypothesis is false.  It matters not if 99.99 percent of "scientists" claim a hypothesis is true.  Votes don't count in science.  Proof that a hypothesis is false prevails over all claims that it is true.  Peer reviewed scientific papers prove the three climate change hypotheses are false, proving our CO2 emissions DO NOT cause climate change.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet.  The global mean surface temperature is widely studied to monitor climate change.  A current debate centers around whether there has been a recent (post-1970s) surge/acceleration in the warming rate.  Here we investigate whether an acceleration in the warming rate is detectable from a statistical perspective.  We use changepoint models, which are statistical techniques specifically designed for identifying structural changes in time series.  Four global mean surface temperature records over 1850-2023 are scrutinized within.  Our results show limited evidence for a warming surge; in most surface temperature time series, no change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s is detected despite the breaking record temperatures observed in 2023.  As such, we estimate the minimum changes in the warming trend required for a surge to be detectable.

The Editor says...
[#1] If global warming is too small to be detectable, it's certainly too small to be noticed, and too small to affect anything.  In other words, global warming, for all practical purposes, does not exist.  [#2] If "recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet," there was no surge.  This entire article is a farce.  There has been no recent surge in global warming, if it is undetectable.

The not so great pyramids.  In the political environment we are experiencing now, under the Biden/Harris administration, I believe we are experiencing the building of Not So Great Pyramids.  The pyramid starts at the local level:  town councils, local commissioners, and city governments.  Then it grows into the counties, the states, and finally the whole country.  This pyramid-building is especially rampant in the climate change hoax being perpetrated on American citizens.  Every government entity from the smallest to the largest wants to participate in the so-called climate crisis with edicts like no gas stoves, no wood stoves, no air-conditioning, and banning flatulent cows.  Most of these proposals have one thing in common:  they all provide money to the climate change groups and non-government organizations that prosper while restricting others' freedoms.

It's too late to save Britain from overheating, says UN climate chief.  Humanity has missed its chance of keeping global warming below 1.5[°]C and it will take "heroic efforts" to stay below 2[°]C this century, the scientist leading the global effort to understand climate change has warned.  Jim Skea, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said a failure to sufficiently curb carbon emissions had left the world on track to warm by 3[°]C by 2100.  This average masks variations between land and sea, with western Europe and the UK facing even greater warming — perhaps as much as 5[°]C by the end of the century.  "We are potentially headed towards 3[°]C of global warming by 2100, if we carry on with the policies we have at the moment," said Skea.  "Obviously temperature rises over land will be higher than over the ocean.  We don't know how warm it will get [over land] but I know it may be more than the global average."

The Editor says...
I just have a few questions.  [#1] How is Mr. Skea so sure of his assertions?  If he's so certain of his predictions, why does he say "we are potentially headed towards" a warmer climate?  He doesn't inspire much confidence when he admits "we don't know how warm it will get."  Those are weasel words, leaving him wiggle room when things don't work out as he predicts — although he will be long gone by then.  [#2] Who decides what is "overheating?"  Who decides what the ideal temperature should be?  Three degrees C., more than what?  [#3] How many of us will be around in 75 years?  It's somebody else's problem, if it's a problem at all.  [#4] How many other such predictions have fallen flat over the last 30 years?  [#5] What if the solutions are worse than the problem?  If the solution is to have electricity only 12 hours a day, I'd be happy to take my chances with the warm weather.  [#6] Who would notice the difference if the world-wide average temperature increased three degrees in the next couple of years?  If the same change takes place over the next 75 years, nobody will notice!  [#7] Our only option is to relocate or adapt, because the climate is gonna change, one way or another.  [#8] If it's too late already, what's the point of this article?  [#9] What if the computer models are all wrong, and carbon dioxide has no connection to global warming?  [#10] How much does it matter what England does to address this (non-)problem, if China and India couldn't care less?  [#11] Mr. Skea is a pencil-pushing bureaucrat from the U.N.  His job, like the rest of the U.N., should not exist.  The whole purpose of the U.N. is to keep everyone afraid of impending doom, perpetuate the existence of the U.N. itself, and wipe out Israel.

Carbon Dioxide: A Pollutant or the Food of Life?  You be the judge.  [Scroll down]  Fact:  Not only does Carbon Dioxide absorb only a tiny portion of the full spectrum of re-radiated heat from the surface of our planet, only radiation with a frequency around 14.8 microns, but it cannot hold the radiation, it re-emits it within microseconds in all directions.  [¶] Fact:  Any "Greenhouse" effect that CO2 "might" have is finished at 3 meters above the Earth's surface.  Doubling its current quantity in the atmosphere will have no discernible effect.  [¶] Fact:  Water for example, can absorb nearly the full spectrum of re-radiated heat, from 2 to 30 microns.  And it CAN hold the heat.  (We have all boiled kettles).  As well, because of its ability to manage energy through changes of state from ice, to water, to vapour, and back again, and by its huge abundance in our atmosphere, water is virtually the main control factor for all of our climate.  We see it in our clouds up to thousands of meters, and we feel it in the humidity or lack thereof.  Carbon Dioxide doesn't even make the scale by comparison. [...] Fact: Sadly for NASA and the IPCC, ALL the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics tell us that a cooler body, the atmosphere, can NEVER heat a warmer body, the Earth's surface.  And energy is NEVER cumulative in the way that they purport.

Who Should We Punish for the Fake Science Poisoning our Children's Futures?  In his recent Substack, Glenn Reynolds asks a question I think should be pondered and answered:  Should we criminalize scientific fraud?  As Reynolds notes, the issue is complex.  Determining what real science fraud is versus typos and misinterpreting data can be difficult.  However, as it relates to climatology, massaging data to produce temperature spikes and ignoring urban heat island effects to support the green energy agenda should have consequences.  And, as we have seen with COVID-19, poor science used to promote disastrous rules and regulations isn't confined to climate. [...] Currently, it seems science that gets social media clicks, softball interview questions, academic rewards, and generous funding is the science that can occur.  Research isn't done for knowledge's sake but for personal gain.  If punishing fake science is difficult, and completely removing incentives for fake science to be published is not practical.  Preventing it from taking root by showing the data can be replicated before new rules are created would be the logical path forward.

Study: Most 'climate' policies don't help reduce emissions.  Only a small percentage of climate policies instituted globally have actually resulted in any significant emissions reductions, according to a study published earlier in August in Science, a respected scientific publication.  The new study, titled "Climate policies that achieved major emission reductions:  Global evidence from two decades," used artificial intelligence to assess 1,500 different climate policies pursued across 41 nations between 1998 and 2022, aiming to determine which types of policies have prompted significant emissions cuts.  The study's analysis found that only 63 of these policies constituted "successful policy interventions," meaning that just 4% of the measures evaluated in the study's sample effectively reduced emissions.  [Tweet]

The Toxic Fumes of Gaslighting.  Let it be known right now, without one shadow of a doubt, CO2 is not a toxic gas.  CO2 is necessary for life!  There is no existential threat of death to this planet regarding climate change — period!  There is however, an existential threat regarding your Liberty, Freedom and Independence, which is coming from the toxic fumes of gaslighting.  We are being lied to and gaslighted, as they try to convince you, me, and all people, that our lives and our lifestyles are killing this planet; there is no truth in their words.  However, the gaslighting fumes we are being forced to consume are destroying our nation.  The climate change hoax is only one example of the toxic gaslighting for which we are constantly doused.  Gaslighting is and always has been the existential threat upon our Liberty.  The tyranny that we are experiencing in America did not just happen in the last decade, it has been a gradual and silent coup against our Constitutional Republic; it was slow at first but now is quickly escalating.

Kamala made a fool of herself?  Time for more climate hysteria!  Playing the climate/weather hysteria card is becoming more and more likely as the Harris-Walz economic agenda is falling flat on its face.  There are, however, limits to the effectiveness of this tactic.  First, the little boy has been crying "wolf!" for way too long to still have much impact.  Second, the measures suggested to deal with such an imaginary problem are really, really expensive, not to mention grossly inconvenient.  Only nut-bag zealots would ever be eager to lower their standard of living because of a popular fantasy.

When you have junk science, you end up with mad scientists.  It seems that every day we're force-fed nightmarish stories about how the earth is constantly warming because there are too many humans and we consume too much oil, coal, natural gas, and even meat.  The solution is always more government control, regulation, and higher taxes.  The powers that be seek to destroy companies that produce reasonably priced energy, and use the weight of government to force us to buy electric vehicles powered by the highly flammable pollutant lithium, and inefficient appliances.  It is a shame they refuse to recognize how our use of these natural resources has greatly improved mankind's quality and length of life, allowing humans to survive hot summers and cold winters with central air and heat.

Greenhouse Gases Are a Scientific Myth.  Combustion of natural gas (methane) produces CO2 and H2O, the two building blocks of photosynthesis and organic life on this planet.  It is harmless and most likely beneficial to the environment.  At our gas-physics Weights and Measures facility in California, we tested carbon dioxide.  It cools about the same as dry air: 20 degrees in less than 4 minutes.  It cannot possibly retain heat from day to day (global warming).  We also tested our humid atmosphere, including the trace gases therein.  That cools about 1 degree every 32 minutes or 20 degrees in roughly 11 hours.  These tests prove that no gas — not carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane, nor even humid air — retains heat from day to day.  The scientific reality is, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas.  So what is the source of the false greenhouse theory?  More importantly, why is it wrong?  After Al Gore arranged $22 billion annually for universities to study global warming, professors dredged up the old greenhouse theory to justify regulating carbon dioxide.  John Tyndall's experiment and thirty-six-page paper, written in 1861, is the much referenced scientific study behind the greenhouse theory and global warming.  No new significant science has been added to the greenhouse theory since the paper was written.  Advocates even use some of Tyndall's exact words from the paper.

Scary Fairy Tales have Replaced Sound Science; It's Time for an Accounting.  We now live in a world of "truths by proxy" where the global elite determine the truth no matter what the science says.  But, of course, the science books have been morphed into teaching the science of global warming.  What is that?  Since Day One, the old science of Copernicus, Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, et al, has been replaced by a politically correct, scientifically corrupt and nonsensical science of rebuilding the earth to self-destruct — but taking out man first.  When the Globalists realized that a New Ice Age wasn't going to fly, that it was too obvious that we weren't going to be wiped out by glaciers, even in the long-distant future, they knew they would have to come up with a somewhat-believable bogeyman.  Through the Club of Rome, "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.  The real enemy then is humanity itself."

Climate change season is upon us!  Climate has been called the long-term average of prevailing weather patterns.  But the political left, which controls the narrative, assumes there is a single, universal, all-encompassing climate — a sort of one-size-fits-all environment — that can be easily be boxed up and presented as being identical all over the world.  But can we compare the climate of, say, Antarctica to that of southern Florida?  Of course not — they are two completely different climates, and what's true for one isn't necessarily true for the other.  The truth is, there are thousands of climates around the world:  regional climates, local climates, micro-climates and even artificial climates.  But the idea that there's a single worldwide climate is a fallacy.  The second fallacy is that the global climate (which doesn't actually exist) is somehow changing, or, more specifically, getting warmer due to the activities of man.  But in point of fact, temperatures are not rising in the aggregate, but have remained steady for at least the last 20 years if not longer.

Climate Alarmism is the existential threat to humanity.  In reality, climate change is nowhere near an existential threat.  In fact, in many ways, the slight warming that has occurred over the past half century or so has made life better for humanity.  For instance, NASA satellite data show a significant rise in global plant growth in recent decades — what some call global greening.  A slightly warmer planet is also beneficial because it produces greater crop yields.  However, one can make a compelling argument that climate alarmism, and the policies that climate alarmists support, actually comprise an existential threat to humanity.  First and foremost, climate alarmists are hellbent on ending the use of affordable and reliable energy in the form of fossil fuels.  This alone is a horrendous stance that puts millions of lives at risk.  Like it or not, the advent of fossil fuels, namely oil, coal, and natural gas, has been the biggest boon for humanity in all of history.  The harnessing of these resources to supply virtually unlimited energy in cost-effective terms has raised billions of people from abject poverty.

The Climate Crisis Narrative is Dead.  In an op/ed at the Wall Street Journal titled "The Climate Crisis Fades Out," former Obama climate advisor and author Steven Koonin says one reason why the prevailing climate alarm rhetoric is failing to move voters lies in the reality that "the energy transition's purported climate benefits are distant, vague and uncertain while the costs and disruption of rapid decarbonization are immediate and substantial.  The world has many more urgent needs, including the provision of reliable and affordable energy to all."  Noting that the preferred, rent-seeking "solutions" to climate change offered by the ruling class aren't really solutions at all — a theme I've written about for several years now — Koonin posits that we should be happy that the "crisis" narrative is failing and fading as it goes through what he refers to as the "issues-attention cycle."  As a result of this focus on these non-solutions, global emissions have continued to rise in this century.  Fossil fuels still provide roughly 80% of primary energy now despite more than $12 trillion in renewable energy investments in just the past 9 years.

Will the Democrats Survive this Year's Election?  Americans and the western world in general are losing their enthusiasm for government-centered solutions to the various problems that we are facing. [...] Then there are the economically disastrous edicts being handed down in order to modify the weather — such as banning devices that run on gasoline, diesel, or natural gas, let alone coal.  This is typically being done in advance of necessary, though not yet available, state-of-the-art technology.  Too bad that the weather is pretty much the same as it ever was, despite media-generated hysteria over normal, though dramatic, events — you know, like tornadoes during (ahem) tornado season and along Tornado Alley.

'Scientists lose our credibility when we become climate activists'.  A Cambridge climate scientist has called on his colleagues to step back from activism, arguing that they risk undermining the science to fit the politics.  Writing in the journal NPJ Climate Action, Ulf Büntgen, professor of environmental systems analysis, said that he was "concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists."  He wrote: "An ever-growing commingling of climate science, "climate activism," climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions, not only creates confusion among politicians, stakeholders and the wider public, but also diminishes academic credibility."  He added that they risked making climate change a "dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public".

A Nuanced Argument for The Benefits of Global Warming.  People often ask me, "Do you believe in global warming?" as if it's a religion.  But "belief" is not how reality works.  More useful questions could be:  What's the probability that the
  [#1]  climate is changing?
  [#2]  change is bad?
  [#3]  change is worse than the alternative?
It's worth thinking about to see if we understand the world properly.  I researched this topic for strategic reasons for our business — is climate something we want to invest in?  Anyone who has a more accurate prediction of the future has an advantage.  The discussion of climate has become muddied due to conflicts of interest.  We can't trust the coal miner or the conservative politician when they say "Global warming is a non-issue," nor can we trust the left-wing or solar startup that global warming is the biggest threat to humanity.  "You cannot get a man to understand something that his salary depends upon him not understanding."  Meanwhile, we sit somewhere in the middle:  environmentalists in the traditional sense and we do raise funding from climate-related groups.

Climate lockdowns next?  Since the COVID scare worked so well for the left, could a climate lockdown be next?  We all vividly recall the absurd COVID lockdowns.  While they had no effect on the spread of illness, the imposed restrictions certainly proved that a large segment of the population was easily compelled to come to heel and submit to the government's outrageous demands. [...] It was a 1987 UN document entitled, Our Common Future, that officially introduced CO2 as not only the cause of global warming but a threat to world peace and an agent of economic inequality.  Since then, the elites at the World Economic Forum have provided muscle for the United Nation's plans.  In fact, a man the WEF describes as an agenda contributor, Yuval Noah Harari, pompously declared, "You can stop all flights, you can lockdown entire countries," to combat climate change.  Climate lockdowns have been discussed by Democrats for several years.  Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced the Climate Emergency Act of 2021, co-sponsored by 62 congressional Democrats.

Here's How We Know The Climate Crisis Is Not About The Climate.  Carbon dioxide is a pollutant, the Environmental Protection Agency says.  It's been drilled into us for more than 30 years that we have to cut our CO2 emissions if we don't want the world to end too soon.  But we know that the climate scare is in no way related to protecting the sky.  The data tell us so.  Over the last three calendar years, 2021, 2022 and 2023, "...no country has reduced its carbon emissions more than any other major nation on a per capita basis," the Committee to Unleash Prosperity tells us.  "Even tough our GDP is about 50% higher than China's, our per capita emissions are roughly the same," says the group.  The data also tell is that though China's emissions grow every year, "ours have come down every year over the last decade." [...] If our "leaders" were being honest, then we wouldn't have an entirely mad administration demanding that we cut "greenhouse gas emissions 50-52% below 2005 levels in 2030," reach "100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035" and achieve "a net-zero emissions economy by 2050."  Nor would our elites have feted Thunberg and treated her as an authority who must be revered while she ranted and scolded and screeched.

Washing away the Climate Lunatics.  For notorious historic reasons, Europe is always vulnerable to the madnesses and outrages of the left.  The senior human rights court in Europe ruled three weeks ago in a lawsuit brought by 2000 elderly Swiss women against the Swiss government that it had violated the human rights of the plaintiffs by insufficiently mitigating climate change.  Switzerland is a very small country but is responsible for between two and three per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, while Canada, a huge country with a much larger population, emits only 1.5 per cent of global emissions, compared to 27 percent for China.  The European Court of Human Rights crossed the jurisdictional Rubicon by overruling the voters of a democratic country.  The rationale for hurling millions of auto workers into unemployment and shutting down Europe's greatest industry in order to profit the Chinese is a case that even the most ardent climate-zealots will find challenging.

Living with Climate Change.  People adapt.  If we don't, we die.  People who live in cold climes wear heavier clothing for thermal protection than Floridians. [...] Climate is always changing.  Man has nothing to do with this simple fact.  Our paltry contribution of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the earth by about the same amount that the period at the end of this sentence will block the light from your computer screen.  It didn't begin to rise much until long after warming began at the end of the Little Ice Age about two hundred years ago.  If we achieve "net zero," we may actually see a large part of the green on the earth disappear, since carbon dioxide is essential to all plant life.  If, on the other hand, we encourage its rise, then plants will grow more readily in arid climates, allowing deserts to bloom like roses.

Why is the WHO Asking Doctors to Lie to Promote Climate Alarm?  Last month, everybody's favourite intergovernmental agency, the World Health Organisation (WHO), published a "new toolkit empowering health professionals to tackle climate change".  The toolkit is the latest attempt to enlist one of the most trusted professions into the climate war.  But not only is this transparently ideological and condescending 'toolkit' lacking in fact, it requires 'healthcare professionals' to use their authority to eschew science and lie to their patients and politicians.  The climate war is, after all, political.  The problem for climate warriors of all kinds since the climate scare story emerged in the 1980s and became orthodoxy in the 1990s and 2000s has been the rapid improvement of all human welfare metrics the world over.  On the one hand, all life on Earth and the collapse of civilisation hangs in the balance — that is supposedly the implication of data that shows the atmosphere has got warmer.  But on the other hand, people living in economies at all levels of development are today living longer, healthier, wealthier and safer lives than any preceding generation.

It's time to talk about Eco-anxiety.  ["]If it bleeds, it leads["] has long been newspapers' motto and nothing has changed.  There's even books on the subject, as sociology writers pounce upon social manias like carrion birds.  Ben Cooke in reviewing The Weight of Nature by Clayton Page Aldern says how he reads about climate change and climate disasters every day, without any reflection upon the fact that fatalities from natural disasters (notice the importance of switching 'climate' with 'natural') have been in steady decline over the past 100 years.  In a no way hysteria-led piece of research, Scientists now say that even a pair of jeans could be bad for the environment.  Funny how they're not accusing lab coats, or even pointless face masks, of the same thing. [...] It's little wonder that eco-anxiety involves 'feeling grief, guilt, fear or hopelessness about the future of the planet due to climate change' if experts are competing for the bigger horror story.

Enormous Pile of Evidence That Humans Cause Global Warming is a Monstrous Hoax.  Reliable world-wide records of temperature profiles, extending from the Earth's surface up to even 100 kilometers, began to accumulate in the mid 1970s, with the launch of satellites.  Before then, there were widespread, but by no means uniform, systematic, and dense measurements, using balloons and small sounding rockets.  So we have a reliable history for only about fifty years.  The world-wide Ponzi scheme is aimed at eliminating CO2 emissions.  Why CO2? Alarmists say that increasing its concentration from 400 parts per million (ppm), or 0.04%, to 500 ppm, will increase Earth's average temperature by two degrees Celsius.  Where do they get this?  When the late Professor Stephen Schneider was an acolyte worshiping at the altar in the Coming Ice Age church he wrote, along with S. Ichtiaque Rasool, in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols:  Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate, Science 173, 3992 (9 July 1971) pp 138-141 that the "CO2 doubling sensitivity" of the atmosphere is 0.8 degrees Celsius.  They remarked that increasing the concentration by a factor of ten, to 4,000 ppm could increase temperature by only 2.5 degrees.  Their conclusion was that no matter how much coal we burned, we could not prevent the coming ice age.

Conservative leaders must stop promoting climate scare.  At the Canada Strong and Free Networking Conference this week in Ottawa, grassroots conservatives must insist that party leaders stop supporting the climate scare.  It is not enough to "axe the tax" or "spike the hike," as Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) Leader Pierre Poilievre, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and other provincial leaders demand.  The "carbon tax" is merely a symptom of the climate change disease threatening Canada's prosperity and energy security.  By using the language of their political enemies and promoting expensive and nonsensical strategies to "fight climate change," Poilievre and other leading conservatives imply that they think carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are a serious threat.  Yet, many of them know very well that, to quote from our banner at the 2022 Strong and Free Networking Conference:  "THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY — Climate change is natural.  Trying to stop it will only bankrupt our society and put our most vulnerable people at risk."  Hundreds of grassroots conservatives attending the conference two years ago told us how much they agreed with our message.  But the problem was, they said, that conservative leaders continue to promote the climate scare through half-baked "solutions" to a problem most know does not exist.

Strasbourg court could rule that governments have to protect people from climate change.  The European Court of Human Rights could rule that governments have to protect people from climate change.  Judges from the court will decide next week whether people's human rights have been breached by the failure of governments to protect them from the harmful effects of climate change.  If they rule in favour of three cases claiming their rights have been breached, it would mean that individuals could seek redress with the Strasbourg court and compensation if their governments failed to take sufficient measures to prevent their citizens suffering the consequences of climate change.  The cases have prompted a backlash from the UK Government whose lawyer Sudhanshu Swaroop KC told the court in one of the cases that it was effectively turning the court into a legislator.

The Editor says...
Nobody is "suffering the consequences of climate change," because the rate of change is so gradual and the effects are so completely imperceptible that nobody would ever know the climate was changing if the news media didn't mention it constantly.  Climate change is not a problem.  Carboin dioxide is not a problem.  Power outages are a problem.  Big government is a problem.  Tyranny is a bigger problem.

Corruption Is Treason.  It is much easier to command people than convince them, especially in a world where the truth can be so easily researched as it can now.  The globalist/communists have seized upon the idea of climate change for that very purpose.  It claims as its biggest threat, a tiny bit of the atmosphere that is colorless and odorless and have conflated that as the end of all mankind if left to grow.  Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is derived, to some degree, from human activity, though a miniscule amount of it.  Most of the CO2 is produced by natural emissions, volcanoes introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of human activity ever has.  One eruption is greater than all human activity.  Yet, it's the human contribution that must be eliminated, not volcanoes.

Globalism Thrives on Crisis.  Globalists know that nothing drives public policy so much as the fear of impending death. [...] "Looming apocalypse" is Big Government's best salesman every year.  Ghost stories about "global warming" work the same way.  If voters can be convinced that their economic freedom is leading to humanity's extinction, then they will accept costly regulations and "green energy"-induced inflation.  If they can be brainwashed into believing that hydrocarbon energy is evil, then they will actively protest for a future with intermittent yet expensive electric power.  If they can be deluded into thinking that only politicians and central bankers can save the planet, then they will embrace communism in order to fight "climate change."  Given the fact that Earth's climate is always naturally changing — whether humans are alive to notice or not — governments' success in conditioning gullible people to fear every change in the weather has been remarkably effective in creating voluntary slaves.

WEF Is Dictating Canada's 'Climate Change' Policies, Documents Show.  Newly revealed documents show that the globalist World Economic Forum (WEF) has been dictating Canada's radical "climate change" policies.  Additionally, the docs show that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's far-left government has been paying the WEF with taxpayer money.  The documents were unsealed in response to an Order Paper Question sent by Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis.  The documents reveal Trudeau's "Environment and Climate Change" (ECCC) department paid the WEF to produce a report to draft the government's environmental agenda.  The report included the economic policies for Canada's ever-increasing carbon tax.

Bloomberg goes for broke on climate change crusade.  American Greatness reports: "Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D-N.Y.) is planning to spend over $200 million on a global warming initiative that will seek to reduce the carbon emissions of 25 major cities across the United States.  As reported by Axios, the funds will come from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Bloomberg."  Memo to Michael:  maybe work on getting Beijing, Wuhan, Mumbai, and Moscow to reduce their emissions first.

Legal Challenges Follow SEC Adoption of Costly, Burdensome Climate Rule.  The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday adopted a final rule to require public companies to disclose climate-related information in financial statements and other reports provided to the commission.  The adopting release is 886 pages long and contains 3,241 footnotes.  This rule will not do anything to protect investors.  It will not do anything material to slow climate change.  It will, however, enrich lawyers, accountants, climate change consultants, and left-wing nongovernmental organizations by requiring companies to spend billions of dollars to comply.  Many thousands of highly paid professionals will live off the rule's complexity.  The commission vote adopting the rule was 3-2.  Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda dissented.  The proposed rule was, without question, the most destructive rule ever considered by the SEC.  It would have quadrupled the cost of being a public company and had a highly detrimental impact on capital markets, investors and, because of the so-called Scope 3 reporting requirements, even small companies that have nothing to do with the stock market.  The proposed rule would have turned financial statements, quite literally, into works of fiction.  Although highly counterproductive, the final rule is less destructive.

John Kerry Tries Out A New Climate Catchphrase To Ratchet Up The Fear.  In an interview with The Guardian this week, ex-White House climate envoy John Kerry tried out new language to describe the globalist view of what is happening with the world's climate.  Now, according to Mr. Kerry, we are in the midst of a "climate breakdown."  To review, here is the progression of favored terminology dictated by the globalist elites related to their climate hysteria:
  •   In the beginning, there was "global warming."
  •   Then, the favored talking point morphed into the more inclusive "climate change" to allow the scaremongers to blame every weather event, whether warm or cold, on their problem.
  •   Next, they elevated the fright rhetoric to a nebulous "climate crisis."
  •   When that didn't work to sufficiently hold the public's attention, they elevated it further to a "climate emergency."
  •   Seeing their 2024 election year polls lagging, they now move to the even more alarming "climate breakdown."
Can a "climate catastrophe" or, even better, a "climate collapse" be far behind?

Fixation on CO2 Ignores Real Driver of Temperature, Experts Say.  Each year from 2023 to 2030, climate change sustainable development goals will cost every person in economies such as the United States $2,026, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development estimates.  In lower-income economies, the per-person annual cost ranges from $332 to $1,864.  In total, the global price tag comes to about $5.5 trillion per year. [...] But any decrease in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions won't have an effect for hundreds to thousands of years — even under the most restrictive circumstances, according to some experts.  "If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to 'pre-industrial' levels," the Royal Society states in a report on its website.  The organization describes itself as a "fellowship of many of the world's most eminent scientists."  "Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions," the report states. "The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales."

Under the Democrats' Rule, America Has Become A Failed State.  [Scroll down]  Global warming is a fiction, but our government drives at least half a trillion dollars being spent annually to "reduce" our "Carbon footprint."  These expenditures are direct (i.e., hundreds of billions of federal, state, and local government dollars) and indirect (i.e., the financial burdens forced on citizens through higher energy prices, higher transportation costs, and built-in green energy inefficiencies).  Every effort is chimerical when you consider human's actual, minimal CO2 impact.  Start with how much CO2 is in the air.  As of May 2022[,] CO2 in the atmosphere was 421 ppm or .04%.  But maybe it's rocketed up since then?  Nope.  Apparently, 100 ppm of that 421 ppm was generated during the last 120 years.  If we were to do nothing, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2120 would sit at 531 ppm or .05%.  Not exactly choking the planet.  So, our government is essentially crippling our economy, sending inflation through the roof, and introducing a level of energy instability Americans haven't seen in half a decade to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist.  The governments of serious nations don't do that.

United Nations Demands $150 Trillion to Fight 'Climate Change'.  The United Nations (UN) is demanding that taxpayers around the world cough up a staggering $150 trillion to fight "man-made climate change" — a fabricated "crisis" that the unelected globalist organization helped to create.  The UN made the demands in a new report published by its Department of Economic and Social Affairs.  The agency claims that it needs global governments to commit to handing over $5.3 trillion per year to the bureaucratic agency.  According to the report, the UN needs $150 trillion in order to "save the planet" from "global warming" by complying with the "Agenda 2050" goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Why Is Everything So Stupid?  How did this happen?  How did the rational world become one long chain of lies, a complete fabric of falsehood smothering everything?  The Climate Scam.  It began with that in the early 2000's.  And now, it blankets everything.  This lie has suppressed growth, hope, prosperity, truth, destroyed academia, destroyed government, destroyed scholarship, destroyed reason, destroyed trust in any system.  It has ruined your great grandchildren's lives because the grotesque perversion of truth will destroy human life.  Arguably, given that in four generations humans will be nearly extinct, that geoengineering is methodically poisoning the forests, fields, killing arthropods in the soil, the very essence of nutrition and health, we are well on the way. [...] The climate is not changing in dramatic ways.  Human activity is probably NOT the chief driver.  And nobody is agreeing on anything. [...] The dishonesty of the Climate Change crew has created paralysis, distrust, anger, and when you factor in the misery of those cheated of life, represents the greatest fraud in human history.

World Leaders' Terror of Climate Change.  Playing to what amounted to a friendly home crowd at the Dubai U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP28), NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg went there to deliver a message touting a relationship between global security and climate change, while emphasizing the necessity of shifting military resources to combat global warming.  In his speech, set against a backdrop of the Ukraine war, he was adamant about the influence of climate change on international security with conflict actually undermining "our capability to combat climate change because resources that we should have used to combat climate change are spent on our protecting our security with our military forces."  He would even become apologetic about the Alliance's reliance on fossil fuel — intensive military machinery, telling the audience, "If you look at big battle tanks and the big battleships and fighter jets, they are very advanced and great in many ways, but they're not very environmentally friendly.  They pollute a lot, so we need to get down the emissions."

Mind-Bogglingly Costly Green Boondoggles Leave Carbon, Temperatures Virtually Untouched.  Through Dec. 12, the "Climate!" crowd is swarming COP28, Dubai's carbophobia cavalcade.  (COP28 refers to the 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, under way in the United Arab Emirates.)  The fact that these global-warming alarmists are surrounded by Earth's deepest pools of fossil fuels makes their Hajj infinitely ironic.  Also astonishing is the nearly immeasurable impact of these people's gyrations.  They blow trillions of dollars, bludgeon human freedom, and yet do shockingly little to fix their vaunted "climate crisis."  One practically needs an electron microscope to find their promised reductions in allegedly venomous carbon dioxide or supposedly lethal temperatures.  According to #ActInTime's Climate Clock high above Manhattan's Union Square, humans have — at this writing — five years and 228 days until we boil to death in a cauldron of steaming carbon.  Since The End is scheduled for Saturday, July 21, 2029 (mark your calendars!), Big Government liberals offer jaw-droppingly paltry climate benefits, despite their spine-chilling predictions and unbridled interventionism.

The Absurdity of Measuring Breath for Climate Change.  In a recent study published in PLOS ONE, titled "Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions," researchers have embarked on a quest that epitomizes the absurdity of current climate change discourse.  This study, focusing on the emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from human breath, is not only a glaring example of scientific overreach but also a worrying indicator of the lengths to which climate alarmism is willing to go.  The study's objective to investigate emissions from human breath in the UK population is fundamentally flawed.  It operates under the assumption that these emissions are significant enough to warrant detailed analysis and inclusion in national greenhouse gas inventories.  This premise is laughable at best, considering the minuscule percentage these emissions contribute to the overall greenhouse gas emissions.  The methodology employed in the study is questionable.  Collecting 328 breath samples from 104 volunteers hardly constitutes a representative sample of the UK population.  Furthermore, the study's reliance on such a small sample size to draw conclusions about national-scale emissions is a classic case of over-extrapolation.

The Totalitarian Three-Step.  This simple political dance can be done to many types of "music," for it has only three steps.  We have seen its familiar choreography in efforts against racism and crime, in steps to preserve our national security, in efforts to support agriculture and education, et al; whatever the tune, the steps are the same:
  [#1]   Manufacture a "crisis"
  [#2]   Offer "emergency solutions" people would never accept except for the "crisis"
  [#3]   Results achieve the hidden goal, unrelated to the supposed problem [...]
Finally, the biggest example, "climate change":  Step One, the "Crisis": 'climate change' is an existential threat to the earth; if something isn't done immediately, the earth will burn up in "X" number of years.  Step Two, Emergency "Solution:  eliminate fossil-fuel usage (curtail all manufacturing production, reduce/eliminate gasoline-powered cars, trains, trucks, planes, and ships), drastic restrictions on agriculture and cattle raising, make CO2 (behind oxygen the most beneficial element in the world) a pollutant, etc.  Step Three, Actual Results:  Agenda 2030 is the UN's supposed response to climate change; if its 17 Sustainable Development Goals are actually implemented, the world will be reduced to mid-1800s-levels of food production, transportation, manufacturing, etc... except for the globalist elites behind the "climate change" scam.

Why Governments Have Replaced God with Global Warming.  At the United Nations, dopey diplomats speak in flowery clichés about the value of international cooperation.  In the real world, though, governments succeed in corralling their peoples into pens only if everyone is afraid.  North Korea's dictator must make his people afraid of Americans.  America's dictator must make his people afraid of Russians.  The European Union's dictators must make their hodgepodge of nations all afraid of nationalists.  The ruling atheists must make their postmodern peoples all hostile to Israel.  And the whole smorgasbord of manipulative, malicious governments must keep the world's peasants perpetually petrified of COVID... and "hate speech"... and Donald Trump... and, most importantly, "global warming"!

Who Are the Real Climate Change Deniers?  [Michael] Mann argued that the Earth's climate held steady for all of human history (the hockey stick handle), until suddenly, in the 1900s, the temperatures increased, representing the upturned blade of the hockey stick.  Mann's theory is the basis of the modern CO2-focused "global warming" movement, which ironically morphed into the "climate change" movement.  Mann's theory informs the positions taken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the agency dictating policy to your local, state, and federal governments.  The most important assumption in Mann's theory is that there was no climate change prior to the 20th century.  But this assumption is false.  It is climate change denial; it is the sacrifice of truth for a desired outcome.

A horror story for climate zealots.  Jack London wrote one of the most unsettling and frightening stories ever told.  It's called "To Build a Fire."  It's a half-hour read, and it doesn't have ghosts, werewolves, or possessed dolls.  "To Build a Fire" is a horror story where the only thing that is going wrong is the subject of the story's lack of imagination.  He is a man who has forgotten how to be afraid of the cold.  He doesn't imagine just how many degrees of frost he is facing.  Everything he does is a mistake.  Every time he tries to make things better, they get worse.  And it all was 100% preventable. [...] It's a lot like the illusion climate zealots have that getting rid of carbon somehow means that they get to keep civilization.  They don't get to keep it if they get what they want.  If wind and solar were enough to power industrial civilization, the Dutch would have had our civilization back in the 1500s.  Zero carbon means zero industrial civilization.  It means 7 billion people starve to death.  It means we have forgotten to fear the cold.

Climate Change Is The Number One Problem Of... No Nation?!  According to preliminary results from the World Meteorological Organization, last month was the warmest September ever recorded around the world — the latest in a string of apparent temperature records.  Nevertheless, despite the near constant barrage of media attention given to the 'existential threat', the topic of climate change has still not reached the top of the agenda for many people, as data from Statista Consumer Insights shows.  As Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, respondents in none of the 21 nations covered by the survey collectively rated climate change as the most important problem for their own country when asked to name the issues that were of the biggest significance to them.

The Climate Change-Industrial Complex is an Existential Threat.  Of course, as anyone who has taken middle-school science classes knows, the climate has always changed, and will always change.  However, by adopting this vague, catchall term, those behind the climate change-industrial complex executed a rather brilliant bait-and-switch.  Plus, utilizing the "climate change" narrative has allowed them to connect any and all "extreme" weather events and social justice causes to climate change, even though these connections are loosely affiliated, at best.  Like the military-industrial complex, which referred to the insidious relationship between the military, defense contractors, and government and their aim to constantly increase military spending, a similar dynamic exists today among the climate change-industrial complex.  However, instead of military officials banging the drums for more spending on national defense less we be overtaken by the Soviets, we now have a parade of so-called experts constantly calling for massive spending and the curbing of our fundamental liberties, less we be overtaken by "climate change."

Pull Back the Curtain on False Federal Narratives.  [Scroll down]  False narrative Number 3 is a politically motivated "farce" called climate change.  Predictions of impending climate doom are based on sketchy mathematical models and trend analysis over one or two centuries.  The earth has experienced large climate swings, hot to cold, humid to dry, over several billion years.  During that time, there was no fossil fuel to blame.  Based on the climate change narrative, authoritarians encourage a "Chicken Little Syndrome" where fear paralyzes the population.  People will then accept anything officials say will save them from, "The sky is falling," even suppression of an energy source from fossil fuels that has dramatically raised the standard of living for billions of humans.

Stop blaming Venus for Green New Deal oppression on Earth.  One big premise for the Green New Deal is that Venus's atmosphere is a "runaway greenhouse" due to its atmospheric composition being largely carbon dioxide gas, which absorbs the outgoing infrared radiation from the surface, thereby retaining the heat from the incoming sunshine.  This blanketing effect is said to be so effective that the surface temperature of Venus is hot enough to melt lead.  But has anyone ever compared Venus's atmosphere to the Earth's with the goal of testing this assumption?  Let us do just that using established physical laws.  I propose to use Gay-Lussac's Law as our starting point.  It states that the absolute temperature and pressure of an ideal gas are directly proportional, under conditions of constant mass and volume.  We start with the fact, established by NASA, that the surface pressure on Venus is 93 times that of the Earth.  Since pressure is measured with respect to a fixed surface area, typically per square inch, the one-inch cube of gas at the surface of Venus would be much, much hotter than the similar cube at the surface of the Earth — ninety times hotter for an "ideal gas."

Pope Francis to Bill Clinton:  We Must Halt the 'Ecological Catastrophe' of Climate Change.  Pope Francis engaged former U.S. President Bill Clinton via zoom Monday, stressing the urgency of addressing the climate change "catastrophe," the migration "crisis," and war.  "It is time to work together to stop the ecological catastrophe before it's too late," the pontiff told Mr. Clinton at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).  "Let us stop while there is still time, please."  The pope reiterated his intention of releasing a second document on the environment later this month, eight years after the publication of his encyclical "Laudato Sì" on the same theme.  In late August, Francis said it is time world leaders to "listen to science and institute a rapid and equitable transition to end the era of fossil fuel."

The Editor says...
[#1] The climate changes constantly.  It is not a catastrophe.  The changes happen so gradually that you would likely never notice unless you listen to the talking heads on cable TV.  [#2] Fossil fuels are the best and most affordable energy sources available worldwide.  We are fortunate to have them.  To cut off the supply of hydrocarbon fuels for no real reason would be suicidal insanity.  [#3] I suspect Vatican City uses more "fossil fuels" per capita than any other country.  [#4] What does "a rapid and equitable transition" mean?  If you're making a radical overnight transition, who cares if it's "equitable?"  [#5] If the Pope is sure we can "stop while there is still time," how much time remains?  How does he know if any time remains or not?

The WEF and the Climate Cult:  Colluding for a World-wide Welfare State.  [First,] The World Economic Forum (WEF).  One would think an organization comprised of the uber rich global elitists would be assiduously focused on increasing wealth.  The rationale would be their own greed; and the need to spread wealth to meet rising global expectations of material prosperity that, as history shows, when unmet lead to revolutions — revolutions which confiscate the wealth of the rich and often their lives.  Yet, to spread material wealth is rarely the goal of the rich.  Their goal is to amass wealth; then, having amassed it, to protect it from the masses.  However, in a contradiction Karl Marx would appreciate, in spreading their wealth to increase the masses' material prosperity, they will also be increasing the masses' expectations.  In an age of instantaneous global communication among the masses, these expectations will rapidly and exponentially rise.  There is every reason to believe they will not be met; and revolutions and/or chaos will ensue as the masses demand their "equitable" share of prosperity.

Climate change is almost nobody's top priority.
Half of Britons [are] too worried about [the] cost of living to consider climate change.  More than half of British people are too concerned about the cost of living to worry about climate change, a new poll suggests.  An Ipsos UK survey found 52 percent of Britons are too consumed by sky-high living costs to consider the environment, while 51 percent would like to do more to help but cannot afford to.  It comes as Rishi Sunak is under pressure to mitigate the impact of the Government's net zero drive on households already hit hard by the cost of living crisis.

Western economies wither at the altar of climate lies.  Under President Trump, the U.S. economy thrived.  In 2023, that same economy — together with those of most European countries — is being destroyed by a campaign of climate lies.  One of the biggest attempts at disinformation ever perpetrated is that man-made global warming is an existential threat.  We can thank opportunists like Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Greta Thunberg for spreading the hysteria that the ice will melt, the oceans will rise, and we will all die from heat exhaustion.  Contrary to their frightening warnings, the glaciers have not melted, and the world has not ended.  The global warming hoax is the result of faulty science, endorsed by inept bureaucrats at the UN, the WEF, the EU, and the Biden administration.  Government policy in the U.S., and most of Europe, is based on the delusion that human beings can control the climate.  This is pure nonsense that is contradicted by the facts.

The Global Warming Industry Is Corrupt.  The business model "global warming" is mainly corrupt and is run by paid scientists and organizations and is headed by a super rich group of billionaires.  Their aim is not to protect the climate, but to generate funds for themselves and their dubious machinations.  Their goal is to introduce a CO2-emission tax, like the sin-emission model in the Middle Ages, in which all the states, the politicians and corrupt scientific institutions make money.  Their approach is fear and panic mongering by claiming that the end of the world is coming and that it is due to man burning fossil fuel.  ["]To be fair, medieval sales of indulgences had a more plausible basis in theology than global warming hype has in science.["]  This business model also involves the media who employ trained fear reporters who are referred to as "experts".  Their mission is to work for the profitable business model of global warming and climate death.  They are experts of fear-mongering and the propagation of the CO2-climate lie.

Is This The Most Asinine Sentence Ever Written About 'Climate Change'?  In reporting on a Montana case in which a judge ruled that the state had to include the climate effect of oil and gas permits before deciding on them, the Associated Press showed just how brain-dead the discussions of "global warming" have become.  District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of several young plaintiffs — ranging in age from 5 to 22 — saying they "have a fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes climate as part of the environmental-support system." [...] The ruling was heralded by the likes of Julia Olson, executive director of the Oregon-based Our Children's Trust, which has filed similar lawsuits in other states, who said: "Today's ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation's efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos."  (Apparently, after "global warming," and "climate change," and "climate crisis" failed to move the needle, the left is trying out "climate chaos.")

UN Climate Chief Gives up a Dirty Little Secret — World Leaders Must Coerce Citizens Into Green Agenda.  If you are not a climate change alarmist, you already are aware that climate change has less to do with the climate and much more to do with governmental control over your life.  Jim Skea is a professor of sustainable energy at Imperial College in London.  He was also recently installed as the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the top U.N. body on climate change science.  But whether intentional or not, Professor Skea, in a recent interview with London's Evening Standard newspaper, let the climate cat out of the bag, essentially saying that climate change, the worldwide green agenda, and the movement away from a fossil fuel economy, must be pushed by world leaders on their citizens, that those leaders are the "ringmasters" to combat purported climate change.  Ringmaster does indeed seem to be an appropriate title for the worldwide circus that is climate change.

Climate Change is Not High on Our List.  It disturbs me to hear privileged coastal elites, including U.N. secretary general António Guterres, complain about the Earth's climate having reached the "boiling point."  Today's temperatures are less than what my grandparents and parents experienced in the 1930s and no more than what I grew up with — without air-conditioning — in the 1950s, a decade that was called the "Little Dust Bowl," and for good reason. [...] The real crisis today, as a thoughtful piece in Britain's Telegraph newspaper points out, is not the "boiling point" — an absurdity, since at sea level water boils at 212 degrees, while the highest temperature ever recorded on earth is 134 degrees (in Death Valley, California).  The real danger is that the political elite will use climate change as a pretext to seize total control of the economy and of our private lives, and that working people like my grandparents and myself will be forced into climate change servitude.  That means dictating where we live, what car we must drive, what we learn in school, how businesses operate, how retirement savings are invested, what can be spoken in public or private, and thousands of other aspects of everyday life.  That is the essence of totalitarianism, and it is exactly what climate alarmists wish to impose.

Does it seem as though every news story lately is on climate doom?  [Scroll down]  [Y]ou've probably also noticed that these days that there isn't a news story that somehow doesn't have a climate connection.  That is by design, and not an overwrought term "conspiracy theory."  (The ruling class needs to know that it's used that excuse far too many times, but we digress.)  What are global cooling, global warming, global boiling, climate change, climate crisis, and now climate emergency?  Will it soon be climate calamity, catastrophe, or cataclysm, depending on which sounds scariest and will bring in the most money and votes?  The initiative of the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation, proudly announced four years ago, was entitled "Covering Climate Now," "Transforming the media's coverage of the climate crisis."  It quickly amassed more than 170 news outlets from around the world to Rahm this propaganda down our throats.  It triumphantly announced that "Climate Stories Are Everywhere."

Democrats Suddenly Discover that Summers are Hot.  Democrats and the media seem surprised that summer is hot.  This past spring was "stubbornly chilly" according to Weather.com.  That should not be shocking as weather varies from year to year.  The media can't grasp that idea though.  On the one hand, "July 4 was the hottest day on Earth since record-keeping began more than 40 years ago, according to scientists at the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer project."  On the other hand, 24/7 Wall St claims, "Across the US, this will be one of the coolest summers in years.  In some parts of the country, the entire season may have temperatures below normal."  Which is it?  Hotter than normal or cooler than normal?  Global warming or global cooling?  For the left, calling it "climate change" covers all bases — hot, cold, wet, dry, snow, heat, storms, floods, tornadoes — all evidence of constantly changing short-term weather and long-term climate.  In other words, climate change is perfectly normal, occurring long before any human activity.

Why We Should Politicize the Weather.  In practice, environmental policy probably won't be a central issue in the 2024 campaign, which will mainly turn on the economy and social issues.  Still, we're living in a time of accelerating climate-related disasters, and the environmental extremism of the Republican Party — it is more hostile to climate action than any other major political party in the advanced world — would, in a more rational political debate, be the biggest election issue of them all.

The Editor says...
There are no "accelerating climate-related disasters," and if you want to talk about "environmental extremism," check out this page.

1,500 Years Of Heatwaves.  In 627, the heat was so great in France and Germany, says the London Standard, that all springs dried up; water became so scarce that many people died of thirst.  In 879, work in the field had to be given up; agricultural laborers persisting in their work were struck down in a few minutes, so powerful was the sun.  In 993, the sun's rays were so fierce that vegetation burned up as under the action of fire.  In 1000, rivers ran dry under the protracted heat, the fish were left dry in heaps and putrefied in a few hours.  Men and animals venturing in the sun in the summer of 1022 fell down dying.  In 1132, not only did the rivers dry up, but the ground cracked and became baked to the hardness of stone.  The Rhine in Alsace nearly dried up.  Italy was visited with terrific heat in 1189; vegetation and plants were burned up.

Climate change is just about the only change progressives don't like.  Progressives/leftists/revolutionaries/Democrats (but I repeat myself) always demand change.  "Hope and change."  "Fundamental transformation."  Change, change, change.  Ergo, it is quite remarkable, upon reflection, that the one thing progressives don't want to change is the one thing that cannot be prevented from changing:  the climate.  The climate has always changed.  Dramatically, profoundly, radically.

List: Ten climate lies on 35th anniversary of global warming warning.  It has been 35 years since the start of global warming was declared by climate educator James Hansen and carried on the front page of the New York Times under the headline, "Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate."  Many doomsday calls have followed, but the worst of the warnings have not been seen, according to critics and supporters.  This year, as the anniversary neared, the media stepped up their role in the climate change campaign, blaming warming for the Canadian wildfires and smoke that settled over big U.S. cities, a honey bee die-off, and even a decline in wine production.  But several groups that question the claims are pushing back and just released to [the Washington Examiner] their list of the latest media lies on the issue.

An Infinite Number Of Days To Flatten The CO2 Curve.  [Scroll down]  How would the government deal with a climate emergency outside of placing limits on our movements as a free people?  Another sign that we are being softened up to take whatever punishment the political left decides to mete out was last week's maniacal media coverage of "the hottest day ever."  CNN vomited out nonsense about "record-break global temperatures" that were likely the "highest in 'at least 100,000 years.'"  The Washington Post screeched that "Earth is at its hottest in thousands of years," and proclaimed that "climate denialism" has been "burnt to a crisp."  It was all meant to stir up fear and continue the conditioning of the West for the next round of policy shackles.  We regret that it will have its intended effect on many, even though, as our friend Steve Milloy from junkscience.com wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "the notion of 'average global temperature' is meaningless."

WEF: "We Need Moonshots" to Solve the Climate Crisis.  All this comes hot on the heels of a reminder that Swiss Re estimates US $196 trillion is required to fix the climate crisis.  I can't remember the exact number, but I'm pretty sure the actual US Apollo Mission moonshot didn't cost $196 trillion, even in inflation adjusted dollars.

The Editor says...
There is no climate crisis.  Any money spent on "solving" an imaginary crisis is money down the drain.

Why Climate Change is NOT an Emergency.  [Video clip]

The Corruption of Climate Science.  For over 50 years, with increasing frequency, corrupted, careerist scientists have produced biased studies that, amplified by agenda-driven corporate and political special interests, constitute a "consensus" that is supposedly "beyond debate." We are in a "climate crisis."  To cope with this climate emergency, all measures are justifiable.  This is overblown, one-sided, distorted, and manipulative propaganda.  It is the language of authoritarians and corporatists bent on achieving even more centralized political power and economic wealth.  It is a scam, perhaps the most audacious, all-encompassing fraud in human history.  It is a scam that explicitly targets and crushes the middle class in developed nations and the entire aspiring populations in developing nations, at the same time as its messaging is designed to secure their fervent acquiescence.

Reparations for climate change?  Some think oil companies should pay.  The idea that polluters should pay reparations for climate change is gaining steam among advocates.  Some environmentalists and academics argue the companies or states that are most significantly contributing to the climate crisis should be made to compensate the people bearing the brunt of its impacts.  Advocates have been calling for such reparations for years, especially since evidence emerged that fossil fuel companies were aware of the impact of carbon emissions.  But the idea is now more practically achievable due to scientific advances, said Adrien Salazar, policy director at the nonprofit Grassroots Global Justice.  He pointed to the increased sophistication of diagnostic techniques such as "attribution science, a rapidly developing field that says when this disaster happens, how much of this is attributed to the climate crisis [and] to the fact that humans have had an impact on the atmosphere."

The Editor says...
[#1] This sounds like just another computer model, into which any data is entered, and the output immediately says, "Exxon."  [#2] This scheme assumes that we all agree that a climate crisis exists, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and that the "reparations" money (payable to a "non-profit" organization) will make the weather remain constant forever.  It's obvious they think we're all really stupid.

Greenie activists humiliated by Big Oil shareholders, who voted down their virtue-signaling proposals by big margins.  [Scroll down]  Since Reuters didn't seem to ask anyone why they voted against the greenie junk proposals, we are left to speculate, but it's not hard.  One, oil is the wave of the future, the best and most efficient fuel, and all you have to do is ask the Chicoms, who are laying out big cash for their deep-oil digging, which is the cutting edge of technology. [...] Two, it's the money, honey.  Going woke doesn't add a cent of value to shareholders' portfolios.  It doesn't help profits, it actually eats them, attempting to drive oil producers into way less efficient and less lucrative greenie schemes instead of doing what they're good at, which is pumping oil.  Wind, solar and other kinds of green power "alternatives" are nowhere near as energy-dense or as efficiently produced as black gold.  They also constantly require bailouts and subsidies to keep them afloat.  How can that compare to oil, which is one technological revolution after another in horizontal drilling, deep sea drilling, and other innovations?  The shareholders seem to know this and are sticking with oil.

Exxon, Chevron shareholders soundly reject climate-related petitions.  Exxon Mobil Corp and Chevron Corp shareholders on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected calls for stronger measures to mitigate climate change, dismissing more than a dozen climate-related proposals at their annual meetings.  The results supported the two largest U.S. oil producers in resisting pressure from investor groups calling for the pair to follow European rivals in accepting tougher emissions reductions goals.  Despite efforts by Shell PLC, BP PLC and TotalEnergies, protesters still stormed their shareholder meetings this year, seeking a faster shift away from fossil fuels.  Their demands similarly failed.  Exxon and Chevron's meetings were online, avoiding similar protests.

The Corruption of Climate Science.  It is no exaggeration that every major institution in America has now committed itself to the elimination of affordable and abundant energy.  If it isn't stopped, this commitment, motivated by misguided concern for the planet but also by a lust for power and money and enabled by moral cowardice and intellectual negligence, will destroy Western civilization.  For over 50 years, with increasing frequency, corrupted, careerist scientists have produced biased studies that, amplified by agenda-driven corporate and political special interests, constitute a "consensus" that is supposedly "beyond debate."  We are in a "climate crisis."  To cope with this climate emergency, all measures are justifiable.  This is overblown, one-sided, distorted, and manipulative propaganda.  It is the language of authoritarians and corporatists bent on achieving even more centralized political power and economic wealth.  It is a scam, perhaps the most audacious, all-encompassing fraud in human history.

China thumbs its nose at the climate cult.  Up until now, China has been considered a "developing nation" in terms of carbon emissions, so most of the alarmists continue to turn a blind eye to the way they ignore restrictions being put in place by other nations.  They scoff at the idea of paying into global climate funds.  China has a population of 1.4 billion, as compared to the roughly 330 million in the United States.  India has even more now and they don't do [anything] about climate change either beyond paying lip service to it.  Meanwhile, China is bringing new coal-fired power plants online every week.  They're building pipelines and expanding their oil and natural gas resources.  Their energy needs are expanding as they grow and seek to displace the United States as a global superpower and they're doing what it takes to power those efforts.  Meanwhile, here in the United States, power plants are being taken offline with no plans to replace the lost energy.  We're being pushed into rolling blackouts and the government is coming to take away your gas stoves.  And it's all supposedly being done to prevent an increase in average global temperatures of one degree in the coming decades.

The IPCC Radical Climate Change Agenda Is a Neo-Marxist, Postmodern Value Narrative.  The sad truth is that government-funded climate scientists know CO2 is not the control knob of Earth's temperature.  The postmodernist mind lives in the John Lennon world where "reimagining" is required to advance us into their carbon-free utopia.  In this bizarre world, post-modernism rejects the Enlightenment's confidence in a fact-based, rule-driven reality anchored by scientific proof that overrides subjective desires.  To them, reality is a "language game" (in Wittgenstein's terms) or, as they say, a "narrative." [...] In 2018, the IPCC issued a policy statement requiring governments to limit or discontinue the burning of hydrocarbon fuels to reduce the emission of CO2 to keep the planet from exceeding 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.  Politically correct global warming/climate change true believers assume all who love Earth must think we have no choice but to abandon hydrocarbon fuels.  The IPCC "scientific consensus" is operative on a normative level, not as an Enlightenment science-tested statement of proven fact.

U.N. Names 'Climate Change' a Top Threat to Babies.  A U.N.-sponsored study has sounded the alarm on a "silent emergency" of preterm birth rates variously attributed to "climate change" amongst a host of other factors.  The report titled Born Too Soon: Decade of Action on Preterm Birth was produced by the combined efforts of the World Health Organisation (W.H.O.) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).  Overall, it finds preterm birth rates have not changed in any region in the world in the past decade, with 152 million vulnerable babies born too soon from 2010 to 2020.

The Editor says...
[1]Newborn babies aren't left outside in the elements, so they have the least exposure to the climate, whether warm or cold.  [2]The organizations exhibiting all this concern about babies "born too soon" also promote abortion world-wide.  [3]The people who are so alarmed about one-half degree of global warming are the same ones who are trying to do away with air conditioning.

Beware the Globalist 'One Health' Propaganda Merging Pandemic and Climate 'Emergencies'.  First UNICEF, followed by GAVI, the WHO, the UN, the Council of Europe, the BMJ, the Guardian, the Financial Times, Save the Children and now the Labour Party have all told you:  "No one is safe until everyone is safe."  This slogan is designed to garner ideals of equity and togetherness and induce a warm, fuzzy feeling whilst in actual fact it is cold and calculating.  The ultimate purpose of this slogan is to diminish the range of your thought and to perpetuate the state of emergency.  Its teaching is a top-down imposition with no grounding in reality, amplified with mantra-like repetition by many (seemingly) independent voices until it is no longer questioned by the masses.  This is an insidious form of indoctrination.  The techniques employed by these sloganeers are not new and echo those of totalitarian regimes.  Unless we are able to comprehend the power of this manipulation then we cannot safeguard ourselves from the danger that it poses.

[The] Complicated Nature of Tech Sector Gives Cover to [the] Climate Change Agenda.  Do we understand all the consequences of our technology?  I believe not.  Yet, some people make the preposterous claim they do:  "climate change" high priests and priestesses in government, academia, and big business exploit the reality of the exploding tech sector with its mind-numbing advancements, and use its pantheon of terms and definitions to muddle and subjugate.  No one understands the "proofs" or "conclusions" — after all, easily-manipulated computer algorithms don't instill much confidence — but they have decided that your future will be strikingly different than one you could ever contemplate.  They do this with the sure and unshakable belief that they know better than you.

Enough With the Mentally Unstable Climate Hysteria.  There is certainly no reason to make things up to worry about.  That is what the climate change cultists do every day, however.  When this incarnation of the climate scam began, it was all about Al Gore and his ilk ginning up hysteria for a money grab.  The hysteria thing worked so well that an entire impressionable young generation is convinced that their lives are in imminent danger from the sun.  At least, I think it's the sun that is the Big Bad right now.  This alleged emergency has given already lawless people what they believe are valid excuses for all sorts of aberrant behavior to bring awareness to their fake cause.  A new tactic of these unstable people is defacing famous works of art and having tantrums in museums. [...] I have no problem believing that people at the museum might be involved in this.  The National Gallery of Art is a quasi-government operation, and I'll wager that most of the people working there haven't voted Republican in a while.  Why not help choreograph a little protest theater to keep the climate cash cow hysteria going?  I am beyond sick of these lunatics using this fiction to give the government even more control over our lives and run the economy into the ground.  This grift has gone on long enough.

The public has never seen any scientific data that shows that our use of natural resources increases temperatures or controls the climate.  The United States and other supposedly advanced and intelligent countries are working as fast as they can to destroy companies that produce oil, coal, natural gas and all the products derived from them.  They are doing it because of the predictions that these products cause temperatures to rise and massive climate damage.  What the media and other pushers of radical green energy policies never show is scientific data that show a direct link between our consumption of these products and warming temperatures.  Because there is none. [...] Government policies should be based on factual data, not predictions especially since the dire predictions from the last 100 years have been completely wrong.

Wife claims husband committed suicide because of obsessive conversations about global warming with an AI ChatBot app.  A woman in Belgium reportedly claims that her husband committed suicide because of obsessive conversations he had about global warming with an artificial intelligence ChatBot.  The incident was first reported in La Libre, a major daily newspaper in Belgium, according to Vice News.  The man's widow said that the chatbot app called Chai encouraged her husband to commit suicide, and she showed logs of their conversations to La Libre.  The news outlet referred to the man as Pierre, not his real name, and reported that he had grown pessimistic and "eco-anxious," a phrase describing deep frustration about environmental issues, including global warming.  The text exchanges provided by Pierre's wife showed that the conversation between her husband and the chatbot, which he named Eliza, became "confusing and harmful."  The man grew increasingly isolated from his friends and family before his suicide, she said.

The Editor says...
Global warming, global cooling, climate change, and ordinary weather need not affect you in any way.  Thinking about dire possibilities all day won't do you any good.  If you turn off your television, you will discover that in reality the seasons change and the weather changes, and you can easily deal with it.

With the 'expert' COVID view blown up, green terror must be next.  With the demolition of the "expert" views on COVID — mask mandates are useless; vaccines fail to stop transmission; the virus most likely came from that Wuhan lab — it's time to take a very hard look at another major "settled science" pseudo-consensus:  climate doom-saying.  Climate change is real, with human activity contributing to it.  But the exact mechanics aren't remotely as well understood as received wisdom has it — and the terror-campaign hysteria about how to address it, from Greta Thunberg and Al Gore all the way to Joe Biden, Kathy Hochul and most of the media, is utterly anti-science.  Carbon fuels and the technologies that depend up them are essential to modern society:  Pretending that governments can simply mandate them away, ordering replacements into existence, is out-and-out magical thinking — and policy based on unicorns and magic crystals can only bring disaster and suffering.

The empty suits of the climate activists.  Personified and celebrated by such disparate personalities as Al Gore, John Kerry, and Greta Thunberg, man-made climate change was, and always will be, a hoax directed toward socialist wealth distribution.  When the champions of your cause are failed politicians known for massage entanglements and Purple Heart fakery along with a teenage girl with Asperger's syndrome and a huge messianic complex, any sane and logical individual would realize they were barking up the wrong tree, though metaphorically so, lest we damage a bit of bark and cause a rise in the tides.  Does our climate change?  Without question.  Change in all things is inevitable.  Historical ice ages followed by the restoration of more habitable climes remove any doubt.  Can humans accelerate or mitigate such change?  That is highly debatable and lacks any infallible proof to date.

Global Warming, The Moral Equivalent Of War.  It's not the first time climate alarmists have argued that rationing resources is an important weapon in the war to defeat global warming.  In some cases, it's rationing carbon dioxide, which would mean less of everything, since our economy runs on CO2-emitting fossil fuels.  But there have also been appeals to ration food, meat in particular, and consumer goods.  In a passage that is as revealing as it is revolting, the paper, published last week, argues that carbon rationing would "allow people to receive an equitable portion of resources based on their needs, therefore sharing out the effort to protect the planet." [...] The "fight" against global warming has the earmarks of Marxist thought, in which the individual members of society are expected to surrender themselves to the common good, as defined of course by the regime's rulers.  The core thinking in the paper is also perfectly aligned along the axis of malice with the World Economic Forum elites, who have said the future is a promised land in which we will own nothing and be happy about it.  Yes, those wretches who want us to eat bugs.

The Green New Deal is A Communist Plot.  [Scroll down] Dr. William Happer, is a scientist's scientist, who has served in many pinnacle positions in the scientific world. [...] In point of fact, the climate has been warming 1/10 of a degree per decade for the last few decades as we emerged from the Little Ice Age.  In the 1970's, Happer points out, he watched ice floes come down the Hudson River. "You could almost walk from Manhattan to New Jersey, the ice was so thick."  The temperature is unlikely to rise more than that for next five thousand years.  Climate Change has not been tested.  It has not been subjected to rigorous review. "It has been reviewing itself," says Happer.  It has not been fairly debated, it has never received any rigorous fact-checking, activists have built a cobweb of assumptions and cherry picking and lies.  All our malaise, even and including the Ukraine conflict, which our corrupt leaders think will help them evade prosecution for their many crimes, can be set at the door of this flagrant outrageous lie.  Thousands of perverted incentives have colluded to create an imaginary threat that serves leaders and screws the public.

A Fool's Game on Climate.  Use of fossil fuels had an immediate effect on our environment, as the use of kerosene soon took the place of whale oil for lamps and preserved the lives of thousands of whales.  Under the Trump administration this long tradition was continued and even added to.  The present administration has done much to reverse that trend.  It is almost as if they have determined that every act of President Trump had to go.  A couple dozen executive orders were issued the first day Biden was in office.  Many of these concerned the use of energy.  There was an immediate war on coal, oil, and natural gas, the very things that made America great.  First was cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline.  Then other pipelines bit the dust.  Oil exploration projects on federal lands and off shore were ended.  The goal of the present administration is to stop all production of carbon dioxide in just a few short years.  Carbon dioxide is a necessary gas from which every plant is built.  From that tiny percentage (0.042 percent) comes the substance of every plant and all plant life in the oceans.  We are just part of that carbon cycle.  Animals produce carbon dioxide while plants produce oxygen, essential for all life.  It is foolish to think that man can reduce carbon dioxide and control the earth's temperature.

The Climate Alarmists Are Deeply Disturbed People.  We feel confident in saying that not a single prediction of global warming catastrophe has occurred.  The alarmists know their forecasts of doom have been comically wrong.  But rather than admit their errors, they point to natural events as evidence that they're not wrong and keep warning us that the end is near.  There must be something wrong with them.  It was David Viner, a senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, who told the Independent in 2000 that within just a few years, winter snow was going to become "a very rare and exciting event."  "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said, 22 years before snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere reached a record high.  Retired meteorologist Anthony Watts called Viner's foolish statement "likely one of the most cited articles ever that illustrates the chutzpah and sheer hubris on display from a climate scientist who was so certain he could predict the future with certainty."

The 'save the world' racket is a scam: Stop falling for it.  Collectivism is now cloaked by environmentalism.  Bankman-Fried's fraud is dwarfed by "climate change," a financial scam and global power-grab of such monumental proportions that even collectivist megalomaniacs like Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong wouldn't have dreamt of achieving it.  Using dubious "science" and massive propaganda campaigns, governments are imposing draconian policies that will never affect the planet's climate but will make proponents unimaginably wealthy, while stripping most of the world's population of their property and their freedoms, leaving them destitute and starving.

No, America Does Not Owe the World Climate 'Reparations'.  I've made the case in previous columns that the climate change movement is mostly a climate change hustle.  Let's be real.  None of this is about changing the temperature of the Earth.  Even the most naive environmental activist can't really believe that building windmills and driving Teslas is going to cool the planet.  This is all about money.  Hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of government handouts.  That was never more blatantly transparent than at this year's sham COP 27 climate conference in Egypt, which was attended by more than 20,000 delegates and activists from more than 100 countries.  The only agreement that the delegates could reach was a hollow "commitment" from the rich Western nations — by that they mean the United States — to give "reparation" money to the poor nations of the world.

Scientific facts rarely appear at climate change conferences.  Politicians, bureaucrats, the UN, and a bunch of rich people had another climate change gabfest in Egypt that ended recently.  These people flew in hundreds of private jets for a conference where they pretended that they could control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity forever and pretended they cared about their carbon footprint.  Instead of presenting scientific facts, they base their policies on inaccurate and easily manipulated computer models.  Facts would be inconvenient when they are trying to scare eight billion people into submission.

The Climate Cons.  The world's climate criminals aren't the energy companies selling the fossil fuels needed to power a modern economy, nor those that make the products that burn those fuels.  The real offenders are the global warming alarmists who have once again revealed what the game is, and it has nothing to do with protecting the environment.  This year's United Nations climate hootenanny, the 27th Congress of Parties, produced an agreement in which rich nations will pay reparations to poorer ones for the damage that their energy consumption has supposedly caused.  Our own country, at the insistence of its increasingly impaired, ever-pandering-to-eco-cranks president, will even participate in the scam.  The amount is not much relative to our economy — $1 billion — but it sets a precedent and tells the world that we're willing dupes.  After all, 81 million Americans voted to put a mentally infirm man in the White House.  So we must be in favor of atoning for our environmental sins by taking part in a U.N.-controlled slush fund.

US will pay up to $1BN to compensate developing countries for global warming - but China Won't have to pay.  The United States will take part in the creation of and contribute to a fund that will pay developing nations to tackle climate change.  The fund, negotiated at the United Nations' COP27 Summit, was originally known as a 'loss and damage' fund and had been blocked by previous American administrations.  With a final climate accord already more than a day overdue, representatives of nearly 200 nations were anxious for an agreement they could bill as a step forward in the fight against climate change.

The Editor says...
[#1] Any "fight against climate change" is futile and unnecessary.  Yet the news media seems to think it's a fact of life.  Personally, I adapt to the weather when it changes and don't try to fight it.  Nobody can stop the climate from changing, and the climate changes so little, from one year to the next that it is imperceptible and nearly impossible to measure.  [#2] This is obviously just a shakedown and wealth redistribution scheme.  [#3] Why are "developing nations" uniquely able to keep the climate from changing?  [#4] Here's an idea:  Let's pay the "developing nations" after they prove their ability to stop climate change.

Covid PsyOps Are Now Being Used for Climate Change.  As the eco-zealot group Just Stop Oil continue to break the law and cause mayhem, perhaps it is time to investigate who is pulling the strings of this and other fake grassroots movements.  Even a cursory glance will make it clear that the people behind it are not everyday members of the public but a group of highly influential American billionaires.

UN claims climate catastrophe now almost unavoidable.  Three [...] new reports from the United Nations claim that the planet is in dire, imminent danger because the nations of the world are not adequately mobilizing against climate change. [...] United Nations secretary-general António Guterres stated, "Loss and damage from the climate emergency is getting worse by the day and global and national climate commitments are falling pitifully short.  Under current policies, the world is headed for 2.8 degrees of global heating by the end of the century.  In other words, we are headed for a global catastrophe."  Guterres added that the only way to change this tragic trajectory is with "urgent system-wide transformation."  (Translation: "Wealthy, Western, free-market nations must sacrifice themselves for the good of posterity because no one else will.)  Naturally.  Most of the countries constituting the United Nations want the U.S., in particular, to stop exhibiting "ableism" and to shut down its previously highly productive and efficient extraction and manufacturing industries.

The Editor says...
[#1] Nobody knows what the weather will be like in 80 years.  Nobody can predict next week's temperatures within two degrees, because weather is chaotic.  [#2] A temperature increase of two degrees might not be a bad thing.  There's no certainty that a "catastrophe" will result — especially in places like Finland and Greenland.  [#3] There is no climate emergency.  The claim that "Loss and damage from the climate emergency is getting worse by the day" is not supported by evidence.  Where is the damage?  How is today's damage worse than yesterday's?  There is no damage.

The Globalist Climate Agenda Is a Crime Against Humanity.  [Scroll down] It should be easy to see the hidden agenda behind this repression.  If you control energy and food, you control the world.  The biggest multinational corporations on Earth are empowered by ESG mandates, because marginal or emerging competitors lack the financial resiliency to comply.  From small independent private farmers and ranchers to small independent nations, once their ability to produce is broken, the big players pick up the pieces for pennies on the dollar.  But that's not what you read in the Washington Post.  In a blistering editorial published on September 18, under "The Post's View," the editors wrote "The World's Ice is Melting: Humanity Must Prepare for the Consequences."  For at least 30 years, and with increasing frequency and intensity, it is not the weather that has become extreme, but rather these proclamations.  We have now reached the point where every major institution in the Western world is bent on spreading this panic.  Yet very little of it is justified by the facts.

The Climate Crisis — Of 536 AD.  The foundation of the global warming obsession on the left is largely based on U.N. predictions that assign significant but unrealistic increases in global temperatures and sea level due to increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.  For instance, the U.N. has said the global temperature could increase over a range from 4.5 degrees Celsius to 6 degrees Celsius some time between 2081 [and] 2100.  It has also said sea levels could rise 2 meters by 2100.  Neither is possible, says H. Sterling Burnett, director of the Heartland Institute's climate and environment center.  Both would require us "to burn every molecule of fossil fuel and more" than can be found on Earth.  Not only are these worst-case-scenario estimates that will never unfold, the disasters predicted are far into the future, meaning the numbers so easily tossed around are useful for only one thing: scaring the public and ramming through expensive and worthless green legislation.

The Media's Coverage of Hurricane Ian Proves They Think You're Stupid.  Democrats want to convince you that they can somehow control the weather and that all we need to do to prevent natural disasters is give them power.  That's either unmitigated hubris coming from Democrats or malicious lies.  Maybe both?  [Video clip]

The Climate Crisis Lie.  [Scroll down] Today's climate crisis is a modern example of public policy being ruined by a self-interested scientific-technological elite.  World governments are spending trillions to avoid an imaginary climate crisis.  Bizarrely, the methods selected to avoid the crisis — windmills and solar panels — can't possibly accomplish much, even if the crisis were real.  Climate scientists think they are engaged in one of the hard sciences.  But climate science is actually a soft science because its conclusions depend on the statistical analysis of noisy and dubious data using complicated and opaque computerized models.  It is the perfect setup for confirmation bias, the tendency for scientists to arrive at conclusions that support their preconceived prejudices.

Running the World into the Ground.  [Scroll down] First, human beings are incapable of controlling the climate, which operates in cycles and always has since the planet was created.  Second, our economy is dependent on fossil fuels, and — contrary to the lies fed by the administration — fossil fuel alternatives do not exist, and will not exist in the foreseeable future.  Climate Change Business Journal quantified the cost to the U.S. of the green agenda at a whopping $1.5 trillion per year.  That is the equivalent of economic suicide.  And what do we get for this waste of time, money, and effort?  Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg calculates that even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments — which they won't, by the end of the century it will reduce the world's temperatures by a mere 1/20th of a degree.  In other words, the quality of our lives is going to plummet based on a monumental hoax.  If Biden gets away with his green policy, it will play right into Obama's socialist dream of fundamentally transforming America.  Under the guise of responding to climate change, the Left wants to take what we have and redistribute it to the Third World even if it means crippling the U.S. economy.

The war isn't against 'fossil fuels' but rather the people.  Democrats in Congress just passed a slush fund — also known as the Inflation Reduction Act — which gives massive amounts of money to their political interests who claim they can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity forever.  Politicians are waging a war against the people, which are made manifest in their attempts to force everyone to get rid of their cars, trucks, lawn mowers, and everything else powered by gas combustion engines, based on the unproven theory that they cause rising temperatures, storms, floods, and droughts.  They want the poor and middle class to be forced to buy inefficient, impractical, and unaffordable options, or go without.  What they don't put limits on are private jets, yachts, or the number and size of mansions that emit massive amounts of carbon compared to the rest of us. [...] What we never see in testimonies, articles, and news programs is any direct correlation between crude oil consumption, coal consumption, methane emissions, CO2 content and temperatures because there is none.  The temperature has fluctuated the last 160 years cyclically and naturally as it always has.

How Global Warming Is A Lot Like 'Get Trump'.  We've been hearing the shrill warnings, a constant wave of hysteria for more than three decades.  Because of man's use of fossil fuels, we've been told the polar ice caps would melt, glaciers would collapse en masse, snow would stop falling, rising sea levels would flood coastal regions, and droughts and floods would be the rule rather than rare exceptions.  It's hard to even recall a time when this alarmist or that climatista wasn't trying to convince the world that we have only eight or 10 or 11 or maybe "zero" years, possibly even less than 100 months, to change our fossil-fuel-burning ways before Gaia would see to it that we begin to suffer and perish.  In fact, we shouldn't even be here today.  In 1989, the Associated Press reported that "a senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

The plague of green elephants.  Legend says that if you displeased the king of Siam, he would give you a white elephant.  These rare and protected elephants were incredibly expensive to keep.  So a "white elephant" came to mean a possession that is useless, troublesome, expensive to maintain, and difficult to dispose of — like a sacred cow, but much bigger.  Today, the deluded rulers of the Western world are gifting us and future generations with plagues of green elephants — useless, expensive, protected green rubbish.  The biggest green elephants in Australia are the five desalination plants built hurriedly when climate catastrophist Tim Flannery forecast that burning hydrocarbons would create perpetual drought.  He forgot La Niña with its cycles of rain and floods for Australia.  Flannery's complex, expensive desal plants have largely sat idle.  The sun powers the greatest desalination plant on Earth, all for free.

Can the United States Stop the March to Self-Destruction?  [Scroll down] What began as a justifiable and necessary movement was manipulated into a weapon of revolution and dissonance empowering the Marxist left.  A lesson not lost on the radical left.  The same process was repeated when "global warming" and later redefined as "climate change" reared its head.  Al Gore used the irresistible hypothesis that there could be no greater meaning in life than saving the planet.  Soon many idealists looking for relevance mindlessly joined the movement premised on theory that an atmospheric trace gas, CO2, functioned ss the thermostat for the planet's temperature.  However, within a very short time the radical left took over the leadership of the cause.  They quickly recast the crusade into one focused on eliminating all fossil fuels which would effectively destroy capitalism and foment global poverty, thus making it considerably easier to seize unilateral and permanent power.  Meanwhile, the oblivious single-minded true believers continue to wallow in cluelessness.

The misinformation and lies that are peddled to the public on climate change.  The Earth is not rapidly warming.  We have had a one- to two-degree rise in 160 years after a little ice age ended in 1860.  That is cyclical and normal and certainly has no relationship with an exponential rise in fossil fuel consumption.  Sea levels are not rising rapidly.  Sea levels have risen and fallen throughout history, and a nine-inch rise in over 100 years in seas that average over 12,000 feet deep is essentially immeasurable [sic].  It certainly cannot be attributed to organic fuel combustion engines.  Floods and droughts are not worse than ever.  The Earth is covered by deserts and seas, which are there because of big floods and long droughts.  Climate change is not killing thousands of species each year.  Extinctions have always occurred, and it appears that fewer than two species per year have gone extinct the last 500 years, and those certainly can't be attributed to humans, CO2, or fossil fuels. [...] One of the most egregious examples of pure lies was that polar bears were dying because of climate change.  They are thriving today, and somehow that story is not printed because it doesn't scare the public into submission.

The Editor says...
Immeasurable means it's too large to measure.  Unmeasurable means it's too small to measure.

A Short History of Climate Alarm.  Noel Brown gave us until 2000 to save the planet.  But over the years, the impending date of doom has been continually pushed back.  In 2009, Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister at the time, baldly stated that we had 'fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe'.  His deadline ran out on 9 December 2009. Australian Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, was more optimistic.  Just days before Gordon Brown's zero hour arrived, she warned us we had an extra five years to save the world from disastrous global warming.  Three years earlier, in 2006, Al Gore was much more specific, threatening that, unless drastic measures were taken to reduce greenhouse gases within ten years, the world would reach a point of no return.  When the world ignored Al Gore's warning, the UN's Christiana Figueres gaveus another three years' breathing space, but that deadline unfortunately ran out too, just five months ago.  However, it is Prince Charles who must take the prize for getting it wrong most often.

Long List of Failed Climate Predictions.  A list of 107 failed climate predictions with another 300 posted in the comments section.

Get Ready For The 100 Year Long Climate "Emergency".  Since the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA on June 30, the bureaucracies in the "climate" space, together with all the environmental activists, have been thrown into a tizzy.  The Supreme Court just declared that the bureaucracies have no power to fundamentally transform the use of energy in the economy without a clear direction from Congress, which on the climate issue cannot be found in existing statutes.  And it has become clear that no further such statutory direction is likely to emerge from Congress before the mid-term elections in November.  After November, changes in the make-up of Congress will probably make further such legislation even less likely, if not completely off the table for years if not decades.  So what is a self-respecting climate alarmist to do?  To those over there on the left, the answer seems obvious:  Demand declaration of a "climate emergency."  With that declaration, the statutory gap could perhaps be filled by another whole category of laws providing special powers in the event of a declaration of "emergency."

The Big Lies We Cannot Question.  Perhaps the biggest lie in terms of how it is going to damage the prosperity and freedom of Americans is the so-called "climate emergency."  Almost every major news network now devotes a significant portion of its headline content to what used to be relegated to local television weather reports.  Once in a great while, a massively destructive hurricane used to dominate national news.  Nowadays, every major heatwave and every big storm is heralded as evidence of devastating "climate change."  These events are often tragic and should never be trivialized, but the implication is that any measure, no matter how draconian, is justified to supposedly stop them.  The reality of climate change is not in dispute.  The Big Lie is that we face a "climate emergency."  That lie, in turn, is built on many lies:  Anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of climate change.  The most likely climate scenarios are catastrophic if we don't act now.  Weather has never before been this extreme.  Renewable energy is more sustainable and climate-friendly than conventional energy.  We can accomplish dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions without destroying the American middle class.  It is feasible to replace fossil fuels.  Humans have to be concentrated in cities because that is more "climate-friendly."  Other nations will follow our example, regardless of the consequences.  People who question the climate emergency are "deniers" and should be marginalized if not prosecuted.  Global warming is certain to cause more harm than good.  An honest fact checker would rate every one of these assertions as "mostly false."

Why Pretend Green Pork Will Stop Climate Change?  Take the Joe Manchin-sponsored climate compromise coming together in the U.S. Senate.  Despite panegyrics in the press, this euphoric proposal amounts to exactly the sort of subsidy regime the National Academy of Sciences in 2013, after a similar splurge, judged to be a "poor tool for reducing greenhouse gases and achieving climate-change objectives."  One analysis pinpointed in the fewest possible words why:  "Alternative energy is not replacement energy."  Such packages are sold on the public's faulty intuition that an erg of green energy consumed is an erg of fossil energy that stays in the ground.  But it does not follow.  The most widely celebrated paper in recent years on the economics of climate change concludes that green-energy subsidies mostly just increase total energy consumption rather than displace fossil fuels.  The impact on CO2 and temperatures is "minuscule," according to Princeton's José Luis Cruz Álvarez and Esteban Rossi-Hansberg.

The Great Flattening of Joe Biden's Eco-Hammer.  What is a climate emergency?  Since climate is weather averaged over 30 years or more, no one really knows.  Could it have something to do with the summertime heat wave stressing electrical grids in California and elsewhere?  You might think so, but summertime heat waves are short-term weather phenomena.  This is not climate gone wild.  In other words, a heat wave does not a climate emergency make.  Has there been a sudden demand from the American people to do something about climate change?  Considering that only 1% of American families see climate change as one of their biggest concerns, the answer is no.

How Long Until Democrats Storm the Capitol?  Are Democrats trying to incite an insurrection?  The party's rhetoric on the "existential threat" of so-called climate change has grown increasingly radical and vitriolic of late, its policy solutions alarmingly anti-democratic in nature.  Given the way some Democratic politicians have implicitly endorsed subversive tactics to enact their controversial agenda, one can't help but wonder why outraged liberal voters aren't storming the U.S. Capitol building at this very moment.  "This is our last chance to prevent the most catastrophic — and costly — effects of climate change," Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) told the New York Times earlier this month.  "We can't come back in another decade and forestall hundreds of billions — if not trillions — in economic damage and undo the inevitable human toll ... failure really is not an option here."

The Editor says...
[#1] There is no reason to believe any assertion that "we only have ten years left" to fix global warming, when many similar predictions have failed over the last 50 years.  The weather cannot be altered by legislation and taxes.  Global warming — or cooling — is gonna happen whether we like it or not.  And nobody will ever notice any warming or cooling, because it will be so gradual.  Summer will be hot and winter will be cold, and the best defense against the weather is lots of electricity, which can be produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons.  [#2] Any assertions about "trillions in economic damage" are highly speculative.

Biden Blasts Republicans for Failing to Recognize Climate 'Emergency,' Vows to Use Executive Action.  President Joe Biden called climate change an "emergency" during a Wednesday speech and vowed to use executive powers to bypass Congress, days after Senator Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) dealt a death blow to his sweeping legislative agenda.  "Since Congress is not acting as it should, and these guys here are, but we're not getting any Republican votes, this is an emergency," Biden said from the podium in Somerset, Mass., apparently gesturing at Democrats around him.  The president stopped short of issuing a national climate emergency, but said he would use executive powers to address the issue.  "As president I'll use my executive powers to combat climate crisis in the absence of Congressional action," Biden added.

The Editor says...
There is no climate emergency.  There is no climate crisis.  Long-range weather forecasts are impossible.  Changing the weather through legislation is also impossible.

Saving the Planet, or Themselves?  The global economy has now constructed an entire edifice atop the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming, and activists like Gore collectively have made billions if not trillions of dollars off their predictions of doom.  Environmental activism became a lucrative business, in the form of non-profit revenues and income from corporate consulting.  Now under Biden, activists promise to transform the global economy at a cost of hundreds of trillions.  An SEC proposed rule on "climate change reporting and control" would, if enacted, lower profits and productivity for large businesses and bankrupt smaller ones.  And the SEC is just one among hundreds of federal agencies targeting fossil fuel emissions and exposing the private sector to huge reporting and legal costs.  According to the National Law Review, "companies will likely need to consider and quantify the impact of environmental factors on both the upstream and downstream aspects of their business."  Ironically, the global warming edifice is beginning to crack as European nations reverse their behavior, if not their rhetoric, on warming.

It's Time To Turn The Tables On Our Would-Be Climate Overlords.  American consumers are already reaping the whirlwind from the Biden administration's deliberate sacrifice of American energy independence on the altar of green energy's false promises.  Whether at the pump or at the supermarket, Americans are seeing their disposable incomes eaten away by higher prices driven by the soaring cost of energy.  The prospect of Congress changing hands in January has raised hopes that, under divided government, the White House's war on domestic fossil fuels can be effectively countered, slowing the headlong march to a green Utopia.

Nearly in the Grip of a Cult.  One cult we know a lot about:  "anthropomorphic climate change."  After a half century, "saving the planet" has been woven into the culture.  Many people share the conceit that humans have the power to save or destroy the earth.  Over the years, green initiatives have made inroads, being translated into laws and policies.  Now, though, a rising generation of left-wing Democrats, backed by aspiring oligarchs, is pushing a radical green agenda with greater intensity.  Average Americans are already shouldering the costs.  The Biden administration's hostility to conventional energy production that's led to spikes in energy costs are conspicuous poison fruits of this emboldened extremism.  But there are more Biden policies and bureaucratic efforts pushing green radicalism that are flying under the radar.  They will do enormous harm to the nation's economic and social fabric if allowed to stand.

Top Climate Scientists Slam Global Warming "So-Called Evidence" as "Misrepresentation, Exaggeration and Outright Lying".  Two top-level American atmospheric scientists have dismissed the peer review system of current climate science literature as "a joke".  According to Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen, "it is pal review, not peer review".  The two men have had long distinguished careers in physics and atmospheric science.  "Climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence," they state.  No reliable scientific evidence can be provided either by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they say, which is "government-controlled and only issues government dictated findings".  The two academics draw attention to an IPCC rule that states all summaries for policymakers are approved by governments.  In their opinion, these summaries are "merely government opinions".  They refer to the recent comments on climate models by the atmospheric science professor John Christy from the University of Alabama, who says that, in his view, recent climate model predictions "fail miserably to predict reality", making them "inappropriate" to use in predicting future climate changes.

Covid and Climate Change:  Wake up, before it's too late.  [Scroll down]  All the years I spent arguing over technical details trying to persuade our "useful idiot" politicians to see sense were a total waste of effort.  The climate change scam finally makes sense when you accept it has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with a supra-governmental Malthusian agenda of de-industrialisation and de-population, a long-term plan of attack relative to the quick-fire Covid "plandemic" attack.  Reiner Fuellmich and his colleagues have done a brilliant job of joining all the dots to expose this reality.

The Global Warming Golden Goose.  Climate science was an obscure and unimportant corner of academia until the professors lucked out with global warming.  The global warming idea apparently struck a spark with the government and media establishments and caught fire. [...] Global warming is only one of many current scientific frauds that enhance the welfare of the scientists and bureaucrats promoting the frauds.  Since World War II, the increasing flow of big money from Washington has contributed to a gradual change in the character of research universities.  Money became more important than science.  Administrators who were focused on money and power grew in number and became dominant. [...] Global warming provided the professors and academic administrators with a junk science golden goose.  They were determined to stop anyone from killing the goose.

Just how important is 'action on climate change' to the world's general public?  Over on LinkedIn, climate rationalist Bjorn Lomberg posted an interesting chart showing just how important global warming and climate change issues were to the world's public, citing a huge survey of 10 million conducted by the United Nations.  The chart is here:  [Chart] [...] Lomberg, who isn't a global warming skeptic as I am, is full of brilliant, listenable insights and practical workable solutions to the matter of climate change that don't destroy economies, leave nations smoking ruins, or force people to eat bugs. [...] Lomberg's article focuses on the costs not matching the benefits of climate change action — how the world can spend a trillion dollars a year on climate change measures and end up with a ... 1% ... drop in carbon compounds in the atmosphere.  The problems there are obvious.  His article, which is heavy academic lumber, is well worth pondering for that alone.

Where Science Ends and Morality Begins.  [Scroll down]  Climate change doomsayers never specify what would be an ideal temperature level for human purposes.  Yet this is an interesting question, considering that average temperatures have varied dramatically on Earth, even during man's short time here.  But the premise behind the effort to eliminate fossil fuels — and economic growth in general — is that nature knows best.  Whatever nature serves up, whether it be warmer or cooler temperatures, would be better for man and other life forms than any change in temperatures that might result from human activities (not that such activities are in fact causing climate change to any significant extent).

Democrats are the party of fear because that is all they have.  The media and other Democrats are saying that if the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] can't destroy the fossil fuel industry, then the Earth doesn't have many years left and we will all die soon.  For decades, we have been told that climate change or global warming is an existential threat to our survival and is caused by humans, fossil fuels and CO2.  What we don't see are scientific facts to support these dire talking points.  We see easily manipulated computer models that have consistently been 100% wrong.  The highest number of deaths where heat was a contributing cause, not the actual cause, from 2017 to 2021 was 1,577.  The U.S. has 330 million people and around three million die each year.  1,577 is a miniscule number, less than one tenth of a percent of total deaths.  That small number certainly can't be attributed to fossil fuels or anything else.  Here are some shocking findings:  Most people that die of heat live in hot states, and the average age of people dying due, or related to heat is 85 or older, which is more than five years longer than the average American life.  Did we need experts to tell us this?

Global warmists lie, phantom people die.  Warmists come in two varieties, government warmists and socially propagandized warmists.  Government warmists (and their partners in national media, ABC, NBC, CBS etc.) know that global warming is a scam.  They are promoting it to hide their real agenda of global governance.  They have learned that a global problem, like global warming, is a very good way to sell global governance.  Socially propagandized warmists have been told "the big lie" about global warming so often that they believe it deep down in their soul.  There is no reasoning with these people, so don't even try.  Propagandized warmists are exactly what government warmists want, a large group of people who will never question what the government is dishing out.  They're like the guy who even after the Covid peak, still wears a mask while driving in his car alone.  Both groups of warmists emphatically state, "The science is settled."

Talking Points on the So-Called Climate Crisis. 
  [#1]  When you hear scary claims about a "climate crisis," keep in mind that climate catastrophists have been claiming climate crisis for 40 years.  For example, Obama science advisor John Holdren predicted in the 1980s that we'd have up to 1 billion climate deaths today.
  [#2]  After 40 years of "climate crisis" predictions by climate catastrophists, human beings are safer than ever from climate.  The climate death rate has decreased by 98% over the last century.
  [#3]  Fossil fuels were supposed to make climate far more dangerous in the last 40 years but they have actually made it far safer by providing low-cost power for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought.
  [#4]  Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming of the last 170 years, but that warming has been mild and manageable — 1 degree Celsius, mostly in the colder parts of the world.
  [#5]  Fossil fuels' CO2 emissions have not only contributed to mild and manageable warming, they have also caused the benefit of significant global greening.  Thanks to fossil fuels the Earth is far greener than it was just 40 years ago.

Selling Global Warming to Eskimos.  [Scroll down]  That's essentially what the "climate change" issue is, a charismatic smooth-talking sales campaign selling the world the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming via an endless string of deceptive narratives.  Even the name of the issue, "climate change," is deceptive.  Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, taught around the world from the grade school level through college, used the "global warming" phrase a minimum of 25 times while never mentioning "climate change" once.  Why change the name?  When 'man-caused global warming' pauses instead of continually rising as more atmospheric CO2 irrefutably rises, the public starts asking questions.  No problem.  Switch to "Climate Change™" and blame it for last year's seven million acres of U.S. wildfires, while crossing your fingers that nobody recalls the nearly 22 million acres burned in 1937.  When objective, unbiased observers examine the issue, they find no end to disingenuous imagery and misleading narratives.  Case in point: media don't use clear, midday photos of coal-fired power plants, they instead show views taken at sunset or sunrise where the always-backlit harmless steam emissions resemble sinister pollution clouds.  News reports imply the colorless carbon dioxide in the steam is a pollutant, despite the fact that commercial greenhouse growers pump CO2 into their buildings to help their plants and flowers grow bigger and faster.  Beyond that, news outlets simplify the name of that odorless, colorless trace gas as "carbon pollution," evoking mental images of smokey black soot.  If the public is not being presented with accurate depictions of just those few items, how many others are misrepresented?

Green Energy Chickens Coming Home to Roost.  What makes these common "green energy" policies so astonishing is the lack of "settled science" to justify them.  Anthropogenic, Catastrophic Global Warming adherents claim that additional atmospheric CO2 caused by humans will, in a few decades, have effects devastating enough to destroy civilization.  This conclusion is buttressed by little more than computer models that disagree with each other, and depend on data inputs that are either fabricated or rife with confirmation bias.  But the problem is even worse than that.  Even if what "greens" predict is true, outside the West few countries trying to develop their economies are going to give up cheap, abundant coal to generate electricity.  China, India, and Russia, the first, third, and fourth largest emitters of CO2, continue to burn coal to generate energy, paying only lip-service to the West's climate virtue-signaling and efforts to reduce emissions by switching to "renewable" energy.  This mean that even if the West eliminates all its emissions, it will not be enough to stave off the predicted warming apocalypse.  But it will be sufficient for weakening, if not destroying, Western economies.

What might a climate change class action lawsuit look like?  In two previous articles at American Thinker, I have suggested filing a climate change class action lawsuit to determine if the planet is in danger of total destruction from anthropogenic climate change and to assess dollar damages if the court concludes there is no danger.  This essay examines examples of situations that might justify a lawsuit.  Defendants would be the usual suspects in government, universities, foundations, Green non-profits, renewable corporations and their lobbyists, and corporations.  Greens have filed such lawsuits against governments for moving too slowly to implement the Green Agenda and against corporations for promoting disinformation about the Green Agenda.  Greens have been unsuccessful with these lawsuits because they cannot prove damages.  After all, a computer model from the UN IPCC does not prove damages.

A climate change class action lawsuit.  The UN IPCC and associated green activist groups; Federal, state, and local entities; universities; foundations; non-profit groups; and many corporations argue that the world will be destroyed without policies designed to turn on their heads the current energy system and American economy.  However, the green agenda that is designed to eradicate fossil fuels will inflict enormous economic damage on America's ordinary citizens and overall economy — and will do the same to other countries as well.  This is true even though the "climate change" models have never been fully and objectively vetted, so there is no solid evidence to justify these upheavals.  Nevertheless, American Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency and, indeed, almost every federal agency and their federally funded cohorts in many state agencies are committed to decarbonization.  This is true for a commitment that they admit that they do not know how to implement, as to which they cannot ascertain the final cost, and they're unable to determined the overall consequences of their policies.

The Global Warming Scare Is Most Certainly Overheated.  Does anyone wonder where all the global warming destruction is?  After all, the media are unrelenting in telling us how much climate change caused by man is affecting us.  Yet no existential threat has emerged.  There's something off with the story.  The climate alarmists have based their predictions of doom on computer models that have been projecting global temperature increases, the likes of which, they tell us, are unsustainable.  We must cut our carbon dioxide emissions, even if (actually, especially if) it hurts developed world economies.  This is the narrative we're bombarded with on a daily basis.  And it's wrong.  Those models that have been used to fuel the fright are, without a doubt, unreliable.  According to a recent story published in Nature magazine written by a group of climate modelers, "a subset of the newest generation of models are 'too hot' and project climate warming in response to carbon dioxide emissions that might be larger than that supported by other evidence."

Earth given 50-50 chance of hitting key warming mark by 2026.  The world is creeping closer to the warming threshold international agreements are trying to prevent, with nearly a 50-50 chance that Earth will temporarily hit that temperature mark within the next five years, teams of meteorologists across the globe predicted.  With human-made climate change continuing, there's a 48% chance that the globe will reach a yearly average of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels of the late 1800s at least once between now and 2026, a bright red signal in climate change negotiations and science, a team of 11 different forecast centers predicted for the World Meteorological Organization late Monday.

The Editor says...
[#1] Who decided that the temperature of the Earth at "pre-industrial levels" was ideal?  [#2] Even IF industrial activity (and not the Earth's natural cycles) caused imperceptible global warming, would you be willing to forfeit all the benefits of the Industrial Revolution to lower the outdoor temperature by one or two degrees?  [#3] The variable output power of the Sun is the source of nearly all global warming.  Industrial activity and internal combustion engines have almost nothing to do with world-wide temperatures.  [#4] Meteorologists are often wrong about the local temperature three days from now.  How is it possible to believe "teams of meteorologists" about their forecast of global temperatures in another few years?  When their predictions fail to pan out, will the "teams of meteorologists" be publicly discredited?

Journalists won't do research or ask questions about global warming claims, so I will do their job for them.  Everywhere you go, you hear about global warming.  It's a fake idea not supported by science.  And the press is the biggest perpetrator of the false claims, never bothering to ask questions when presented with looney claims.  They are going to wreck the country if they can't stop repeating this phony narrative. [...] There have been several warming and cooling periods throughout history.  The Medieval warming period, from 950 AD to 1250 AD occurred cyclically and naturally and the temperature was similar or a little warmer than today, 1000 years later.  There was a little ice age that occurred between 1303 and 1860 AD where the Earth cooled cyclically and naturally.  After the little ice age, the Earth has warmed a little, cyclically, and naturally, getting back to where it was around 1,000 years ago[.]

The Unspoken Evil of Climate Change Tyrants.  The current US Administration has driven the world into a more dangerous place, and it has been led there by the climate change dictators.  Consider where they have led us.  The forceful anti-fossil fuel dictates of the green energy policy makers have led America from being not just energy independent but also a major exporter to become dependent on dangerous and belligerent regimes.  They closed the spigots decades before the essential infrastructure had been installed to sustain any adequate dependence on wind-power, solar panels, or semiconductor chips.  They are so maniacal in their devotion to their golden calf that they truly believe that leaving America bereft of fuel and energy is the only way to combat their obsessive fear.  The outcome has been a domestic economic disaster and far more damaging to the global environment and security.

COVID, Gender, Climate, and the Collapse of Science.  Almost from its onset those who proposed what might be called the standard model of climate change have demanded freedom from criticism.  The problem was completely defined, the future was known with reasonable certainty, and those who objected were likened to Holocaust deniers.  The science was settled.  That last statement is particularly startling.  Science, by its very nature, is never settled.  The answer to any problem is not only subject to future modification, it invariably raises many more questions than it answers.  Then there was the appeal to the majority, as if the history of science doesn't offer countless examples of the majority of scientists being wrong.

Thirty Years of the 'Now or Never' Climate Cry.  The 2,913 pages of the United Nations' "Climate Change 2022" report make clear only that nothing is clear.  Written in the incomprehensible language of climate science, there are only two things that are easily understood:  the word taxes, which appears 270 times, and the word costs, which appears 1,585 times.  The entire report, full of technicalities, cross-references, and incomprehensible tables, generates more headaches than alarm.  This is not for public consumption, quite obviously.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps the taxes and the costs confined to the report — but it reserves the artillery of apocalyptic words for the press release.  The headline reads, "The evidence is clear: the time for action is now."  (The "evidence" is the 2,913 pages that no one will read.)  In short, the apostles of the climate apocalypse are once again summarizing their strategy with the "now or never" war cry, the same one they screamed nearly 30 years ago in 1995 at the first climate summit in Berlin.

Here Comes Another Climate Deadline That Will Pass Without Notice.  More than a half-century of global warming warnings have come and gone with the sky exactly where it was on the first Earth Day in 1970.  The fact that it hasn't fallen has left the end-of-the-world cult with no choice but to continue to recalibrate its projections.  And that's exactly what it will do, because the global warming scare isn't about the environment, or saving man from himself.  It's about what has been accurately labeled as a "transformative" agenda to change governance in the West toward more authoritarian systems and to squeeze the life out of capitalism.  The truth about global warming, man-made climate change, or whatever it is to be called by the smart people these days, is that while man's CO2 emissions likely have some effect on the climate — it is, after all, a greenhouse gas, though weak and only a minute part of the atmosphere, a little more than 400 parts per million — its impact is not enough to be a threat of much if any consequence.

Climate change is about control, not the environment.  The apocalyptic talk about climate change is nothing more than a diversion tactic by the government, the radical Left, and their mainstream press.  The many laws, the trillions in federal appropriations and tax credits, and the unworkable proposals to address climate change will not slow the rise of the oceans or heal the planet.  Lobbying for more climate regulation is to enhance the power of the authoritarian state, not protect the environment.  The radical Left has the world obsessing over whether we have 10, 20 or 50 years before the eve of destruction.  The hysteria gives the government the excuse it needs for more controls over the energy we use, the products we purchase, the homes we live in, the food we eat, and since the pandemic when we can leave our homes.  However, the data supporting the climate studies are rarely made public so that scientists can test the reproducibility of the studies.

Climate History Began Eight Years Ago.  Climate alarm is based on ambulance chasing commonplace events, making up fake statistics about them, and never permitting an honest scientist to weigh in on the discussion.  [Video clip]

The Power of Terrible Ideas.  [Scroll down]  The notion that our planet is in imminent danger of becoming uninhabitable because of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is more recent, dating to the late 1980s.  In The Age of Global Warming Rupert Darwall also traces Its roots to two men, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius who, in 1896, wrote a paper predicting that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase temperatures by 5 to 6 degrees centigrade, and Guy Callendar, who, over forty years later attributed a global temperature rise from 1934 to 1938 to a rise in C02. [...] For all that believers constantly invoke "the Science!" "the Science!", Darwall makes the crucial point that today's global warming theory is not science at all.  He reminds us that the sine qua non of a scientific proposition, as Karl Popper pointed out, is that it can be disproven.  But the theory of dangerous man-made global warming is immune from falsification, with any real-world departure from expectations (e.g., a decade of flat temperatures prior to 2009 despite a steady rise in C02 emissions) explained by some untestable ad hoc hypothesis.

UN chief calls for extreme weather warning systems for everyone on Earth.  Everyone on the planet should be covered by an early warning system against extreme weather and climate-related disasters within five years, the UN secretary general has said.  About a third of people around the world are not now covered by early warning systems, but in Africa the problem is greater, with about six in 10 people lacking such warnings.  As climate breakdown takes hold, more people are likely to be affected by extreme weather, including flash floods, heatwaves, more violent storms and coastal storm surges, made worse by sea level rises.

The Editor says...
The climate is not breaking down.  The sea level is rising imperceptibly.  Bad weather is nothing new.

'Climate change': An Ideologically Driven Movement.  In the mid-1970s, scientists and the media overwhelmingly supported global cooling with the same vigor and urgency as Professor Overpeck supports global warming today. [...] Scientists have been telling us that humanity will end in ten years for the past half-century. [...] Does anyone remember the "scientific" theory of "acid rain" propagated during the 1970s and 1980s, which was supposed to destroy the forests and poison our lakes and rivers unless we closed down coal-fired power plants? [...] Apart from greenhouse gases, there are other more persuasive causes such as the Sun's activity, the Earth's reflectivity, atmospheric pressure, and angle of rotation that impact the planet's temperature.  Therefore, there is no reason to be alarmed.

I thought we only had a few years left to solve the problem.  The scientific data shows the Earth has warmed around one or two degrees in the last 150 years.  This would certainly be cyclical and normal after an over 500-year little ice age ended in the mid-1800s.  There was also a thirty-five-year cooling period from 1940-1975, which would not have occurred if humans, CO2, fossil fuels, methane, and all other things that we are told cause warming, actually caused warming.  If the Earth sometimes warms and sometimes cools, there is absolutely no correlation between temperature and the other variables.  If there is no correlation, there can't be any causation.  It is a simple scientific concept.

The US Must Face an Existential Threat, but It's Not Climate Change.  Democrats are committed "to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035."  They want banks to stop financing fossil fuel development by 2030, and they want to end the use of fossil fuels completely by 2050. [...] Democrats are bent on the destruction of the oil industry.  They contend that climate change is an "existential threat" that political and environmental factions describe in millions of pages of mind-numbing documentation.  Climate change is a theory.  One may accept the theory and reject the prescribed remedies of the Democrat party.  Democrats offer an apocalyptic vision of climate change intended to scare the American people into voting for Democrat candidates.  They ignore the human capacity to innovate and adapt to changing conditions.  They assume that if oceans rise, people will throw their hands up and surrender coastal communities or drown.  The Dutch addressed life below sea level hundreds of years ago by building dikes and creating pumps powered by windmills to remove water.

San Antonio climate plan won't put dent in global emissions.  Amid a groundswell of criticism, San Antonio has recently extended the timeline for revision and public comment on the draft of its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, or CAAP.  Unfortunately for San Antonio's businesses and especially its poorest residents, any plan for the city to reach "carbon neutrality" by 2050 is bound to dramatically drive up the cost of living, increase taxes, and discourage entrepreneurship and business investment.  While the CAAP does have some worthy goals for disaster preparedness, the overwhelming emphasis is on reducing the city's emissions of carbon dioxide.  But even if we accept the heavily flawed "higher emissions scenarios" cited in the CAAP, the emissions reductions outlined in the Paris agreement would reduce global temperatures by only 0.3 degrees in 2100.  Hardly a dent in the 10-degree increase that the CAAP says will occur.

The Editor says...
A ten-degree increase?  In what century is that expected?

Unaddressed issues corrode America like battery acid.  These days, when it comes to news reports about issues that matter, a lot falls through the cracks. [...] Given the hue and cry that is alleged man-made global warming, does data exist from NASA that solar output reaching the earth has fluctuated over the last 40 years?  I notice that, in the Global Warming mania, no one ever discusses solar output — seemingly the elephant in the room.  Maybe someone should.  If solar output is varying (or the solar system is entering or coming out of one of the galaxy's myriad dust lanes) is there a correlation with any longer-term surface temperature changes?  We do have the technology up there.  Did the medieval "Mini Ice Age" correlate with increased atmospheric CO2? (That could be determined from Antarctic ice; we have that technology too).

The Great Climate Rip-Off.  Is the climate changing?  Yes.  Is mankind contributing to the change in climate?  Yes.  Should major national policy respond to this change?  No!  Climate changes continuously, both warming and cooling.  There is nothing new in this and probably nothing to get excited about.  Man inevitably modifies the climate.  The only questions are by how much and in which way.  Historically, man has modified the landscape sufficiently as to make a noticeable impact on the climate.  The essential question we must address is, how much are we, today, impacting the climate, and is that impact harmful?  The answer is we don't know!  My suspicion is that we have had only a modest, and probably benign, influence.  Given that we don't know, it is seriously bad policy to imperil our future in an attempt to control the climate.

Many people falsely blame humans and fossil fuels for cyclical and natural changes in the climate.  Many wealthy people who have multiple mansions, yachts, private jets, and gas guzzlers pretend to care about their carbon footprint as they lecture us that we should drive inefficient, impractical, expensive electric cars powered by batteries that are made from a flammable pollutant.  Sometimes, they buy fictional carbon credits to pretend they care.  Their carbon footprint did not change on all their stuff.  Ford and GM make huge profits selling gas guzzlers and then pretend to care by buying a piece of paper showing carbon credits.  The European commission has proposed an EU fuel tax on airplanes and ships, but they exempt private jets and yachts from the tax.  They either don't care or know that taxing carbon will not change the climate.

Global warming [is] statistically insignificant: [The] Climate emergency is imaginary.  University of Alabama in Huntsville data set, regarded as the most reliable global temperature data set developed from satellites, has shown that there has been no global warming at all for the last seven years.  Based on the HadCRUT4 data set, there has been no statistically significant global warming for more than nine years — Aug. 2012 to Oct. 2021.  Before the findings, the United Nations-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confidently said in its First Assessment in 1990 that global warming is a great deal and a climate emergency.  But given the succession of long periods without global warning as shown by HadCRUT4 data set, it is safe to say that the IPCC's warning is way off the mark.  Journalist and blogger Christopher Monckton noted that the West is self-destructing due to its belief in global warming, which has benefited China and Russia.  Europe, Monckton said, is more and more dependent on Siberian methane, the price of which continues to rise.  Presently, the price of methane gas in Europe is six times higher than in the United States.

The Four Horsemen of the Left's Artificial Apocalypse.  [#4] For over two hundred years, the Malthusians have been obsessed with controlling the world's population.  Eugenics, genocide, and abortion are a few of the evils they have wrought.  Replacing the family with government is an easy and effective way for government to decide who may reproduce.  Convincing people that hydrocarbon energy must be swapped for energies popular a thousand years ago is the surest way to hinder innovation, economic wealth, and generational growth.  Brainwashing people into believing that the planet is about to die is the kind of psychological terror that coerces free people into subjugating themselves by handing total power to unscrupulous government thugs.

Tyranny in the Name of Climate Change.  A recent paper published by Cambridge University Press titled "Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change" is raising serious and worrisome questions about the role of academia in our national political debate on climate change.  The paper was written by Ross Mittiga, who self-describes as an "assistant professor of political theory at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, specializing in climate ethics." He also labels himself an "environmentalist, vegan, and occasional gadfly."  Mittiga's paper explicitly argues society must prioritize climate action over democratic principles and adopt an authoritarian government if society fails to politically act on climate change.  Or, in the words of the political left:  "my way or the highway."  This is disturbing because it completely ignores the will of the people to self-govern, favoring a totalitarian approach in order to tackle what Mittiag deems a "climate crisis."

Six Basic Concepts Liberals Don't Get.  [#1] Science is never settled:  Scientists who claim that "the science is settled" are fools — period.  "Science" is our understanding of nature.  It's the height of arrogance to presume that our understanding of nature is either complete or accurate.  We've often thought it was, but history has proven us wrong time and again.  We believed that the universe revolved around the Earth until we discovered that it didn't.  Smart scientists know that there is always more to learn, and they avoid claims that their understanding is settled.  But unfortunately, the evangelists of the weather cult have not achieved that level of wisdom.  We were told that the evils of mankind would lead to a "global warming" death of the planet by 2000.  In 2006, Al Gore changed the Earth's expiration date to 2016, because the science was more settled.  In 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez informed us that the world will actually be ending in 12 years because of "climate change," because the science is really, really settled now.  We're three years into her prediction.  The world has gone collectively insane, but the Earth itself seems to be doing just fine.

A Better Fate for America Than Suicide.  No thoughtful person believes that human beings can substantially change the Earth's climate.  Even the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of climate activists rather than objective observers, has admitted that there is no practical way for Americans to reduce global temperatures.  At the same time, the IPCC recognizes that natural forces play an important role in climate change and that in the past, these forces have altered the climate more dramatically than anything happening today, and this entirely without the influence of fossil fuels.  During the Medieval Warm Period (900 to 1200 A.D.), the Earth's temperatures were warmer than they are now, while in the Little Ice Age (1200 to 1850 A.D.), they were much colder.  Both of these periods of climate change were fairly recent, and neither was influenced by humans.  In fact, the climate has been changing dramatically throughout the Earth's history.  Is it possible that these natural climate variations suddenly ceased just since 1990, when the idea of global warming came into vogue?

A Different Perspective on Global Warming.  We have grown accustomed to climate change being talked about in a certain way.  Usually, it involves words and phrases like "dangerous," "catastrophe," "red zone," and "one minute to midnight."  Equally dramatic are the policies proposed by many in Washington, D.C., to force a transition away from conventional energy to more politically preferred options.  These admittedly painful changes, we are told, are urgently needed "for the common good."  However, climate trends don't support rapid economy-altering responses, and areas of uncertainty in our scientific understanding caution for humility in policymaking.  The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently reported that the earth has warmed 1.1 degrees Celsius since 1850.

Honestly, is climate change really humanity's greatest threat?  Throughout history there have been numerous threats misread or minimized that later caused disaster.  Historians also identify at least 26 alarmist movements that proved to be false alarms.  All that was needed was the passage of time to debunk them. [...] Application for today:  Is America on the brink of apocalyptic disaster, or are we being hoodwinked with hysteria and hype concerning global warming/climate change?  Let's not be afraid to tackle the topic! [...] I recently visited the offices of CDR Communications, which is just one of many companies producing films and programs they say are exposing the "climate hustle."  Their latest offering, narrated by actor Kevin Sorbo, focuses on the following:  "'Climate Hustle 2' dives headlong into the overhyped scientific claims and motivations of those clamoring for immediate action to address global warming.  It features leading scientists, politicians, celebrities, and policy experts, to showcase blatant Hollywood hypocrisy, financial corruption, media bias, classroom indoctrination, and political correctness driving the creation of a climate monarchy."

Climate Change is much more than CO2 and CO2 is much more than Climate Change.  At COP26, the wealthy global elite arrived in Glasgow on 400 private jets to lecture those attending.  They said that human's technological achievements have caused a global "climate emergency", that it is "one minute to midnight" and that if we fail to stop this "disastrous trend" a catastrophe would ensue. [...] Distracted by a scientific community that profits by exaggerating the imagined threat from a mildly warming global climate, world leaders in Glasgow declared that "to go beyond a rise of 1.5°C would unleash extreme sea level rises and catastrophes, including crippling droughts, monstrous storms and wildfires far worse than those the world is already suffering".  But is this scaremongering story true?  Note for instance that the difference between the mean annual temperature in cold Finland and warm Singapore is more than 20 degrees?  Yet, both these countries are very successful.  They just adapted successfully to their very different climates.  Note also that CO2 is vital to life on Earth.  How many delegates at COP26 have any idea about how the Earth's climate works?  And have they any idea about the costs and benefits of their plans?

Those Ugly Climate Models.  The narrative that man is cooking his planet like an overdone Thanksgiving turkey has survived only because the media have propped it up.  But we're confident that eventually the story will collapse.  The evidence does not favor the climate alarmists.  A most-recent example that should help tilt the scales back toward sanity:  Researchers have found that warming in the Arctic Ocean is not a recent event that coincides with post-war industrial acceleration and the growth of automobile ownership.  It began at the outset of the previous century. [...] In other words, there are climate and environmental influences that still aren't fully understood.  Yet all we hear is that we have to trust the scientists, who have reached a consensus that man's fossil-fuel burning habit is bringing planetary disaster.  No dissent from this declaration is permitted.  Those who refuse to pledge allegiance to the accepted story are branded as undesirables.  This is where we are in 2021, and where we've been for a couple of decades — in the world of climate studies, junk science has overtaken honest and open inquiry.

Can predictions be made using less than 1% of the data?  Global climate data has been collected since roughly 1880 (141 years), according to most reports.  The accuracy of this data can be debated, such as collection methodology, data handling, interpretation, etc. [...] The "data," if it is even accurately assessed in the first place, represents far less than 1% of the earth's history if you embrace the long-age view of 4.5 billion years, resulting in .000000031% of earth's history.  In the case of a 6,000-year-old planet, 141 years is just 2.35%. [...] Is this hysteria based upon science or another misguided paradigm based on the erroneous worldview of evolution, which assumes the earth is billions of years old and that the earth's atmosphere, which now supports life, was derived from some continuously varying mix of poisonous gases and took billions of years to evolve into the mixture of gases that now support life?  Or, was the earth's atmosphere created very stable with some random variations over time?  Is it far more robust than some randomly evolved atmosphere?

The giant climate energy ruse.  How can you tell when all your freedoms are under assault?  When Biden goes after your energy — all of it.  And what easier way to mask an energy grab than to tuck it under the solemn shroud of climate?  "Climate change," a vacuous term mindlessly embraced by equally mindless leaders, is an easy sell.  Openly throttling the energy essential to the mindful masses is a heavier lift.  So, under the veil of public virtue, petroleum is spirited off the power menu, swapped out for green notions barely amounting to a diet salad.  Energy is so deeply imbedded into society that it is largely taken for granted — that is, until we're all mugged by rising fuel costs as well as inflated prices for everything manufactured or delivered by energy — which amounts to everything. [...] On a human scale, and within our lifetimes, the global spread of energy has levitated a billion people worldwide out of poverty.  They won't be happy with a round trip.

Treasury Secretary Says World Needs $100 Trillion to Fight Global Warming.  Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen addressed the UN Climate Change summit in Glasgow, Scotland Wednesday [11/3/2021] when she claimed the world may need to spend anywhere from $100 to $150 trillion to combat the negative effects of global warming over the next 30 years.  "Rising to this challenge will require the wholesale transformation of our carbon-intensive economies," Yellen said during her speech.  "It's a global transition for which we have an estimated price tag:  some have put the global figure between $100 and $150 trillion over the next three decades."

China Has No Interest in Climate Change.  As world leaders gathered for the COP26 summit in Glasgow, Western leaders were desperately trying to reach a deal on cutting carbon emissions, which United Nations climate experts claim is a major cause of climate change.  There was no shortage of dire predictions in the run-up to the summit, with John Kerry, President Biden's climate envoy, warning that this is the world's "last best chance" to stop a climate catastrophe and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson talking in apocalyptic terms about the world's failure to tackle the issue placing modern civilisation at risk.  But while Western leaders haggled over how quickly they can reach the "net zero" target the UN claims is essential to prevent climate warming reaching catastrophic levels by the end of the century, Mr Xi has been demonstrating a noticeable lack of enthusiasm for the cuts demanded by climate campaigners.  This has prompted concerns among economists that Beijing's reluctance to join the scramble to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030 — one of the main objectives at COP26 — will ultimately provide China with a significant economic advantage over its Western rivals.

We Are in This Conflict Whether We Like It or Not.  Propaganda is most effective when it is disseminated in small, continuous lumps over time so that should logical contradictions arise, they are small enough to be smoothed over and eliminated without a majority of people noticing.  An obvious example of governments' exploitation of time to subtly rewrite official propaganda so that it aligns with normal observation is the fifty-year shift in narratives linking man's use of hydrocarbon energy to his alleged imminent extinction.  Government efforts to stoke public fear have led to ominous warnings of a looming ice age, then a boiling planet, and now extreme weather in any form as justifications for why a small number of global elites must be given complete control over the planet's resources.  Even though the scientific argument for that contention is totally rewritten every few years to fit observable facts, the powers that be continue to insist that "the science is settled."

Prince Charles Calls for 'Vast Military-Style Campaign' to 'Radically Transform' Global Economy.  Heir to the British throne Prince Charles called for a "vast military-style campaign" to combat climate change as he opened the COP26 summit in Glasgow on Monday [11/1/2021].  Prince Charles, Duke of Edinburgh, called on the governments of the world to take a "war-like footing" to solve the supposed climate crisis.  "The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us just how devastating a global cross-border threat can be, climate change and biodiversity loss are no different.  In fact, they pose an even greater existential threat, to the extent that we have to put ourselves on what might be called a war-like footing," Charles said.

The Editor says...
Hey, Charles, here are a few words of free advice:  Nobody cares about "biodiversity loss."  Nobody wants to assume a "war-like footing" to fight global warming, or cooling, or whatever it is this year.  Nobody wants to dispense with the Industrial Revolution to save the Earth from imaginary doom.  Nobody is afraid of carbon dioxide.  There is no climate emergency.  There is no climate crisis.  Go back to the palace and take a seat.

I have never met or seen a climate change denier, but I have seen a lot of climate change liars spreading scary propaganda.  It is sad that it seems every day we read another dire forecast from the UN, Kerry, Biden, the teenager Greta, or someone else on climate change, and right now is always the last chance to act.  Every solution involves the government confiscating a huge amount of money from taxpayers and then the U.S transferring huge sums to other countries to resolve the problem.  Every solution involves Americans giving up their freedom and way of life while destroying the oil industry.  What you don't see in these dire forecasts are any scientific data from the last 150 years that directly links the US population, coal, and oil use to temperatures, sea levels or storm activity — because there is none.  Facts haven't mattered for a long time when most of the media, government bureaucrats, Hollywood, and other Democrats are campaigning for their radical leftist agenda to destroy America.  Of course, China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries aren't required to destroy their countries like America.  They are special.

Our commitment to net zero has become quasi-religious.  It needs to be scrutinised properly.  The normal interrogative process of accountable democracy has been turned on its head.  Instead of robust interrogation, everyone is presented with a fait accompli.  The roots of this can be traced to a meeting of key scientists, including the IPCC's first chair, held thirty years ago where they agreed that traditional cost-benefit analysis should be abandoned in the climate arena as the risk it ran was that the public might baulk at the costs, when set against the scale and nature of the risk.

How Many People Must Be Thrown into the Volcano Before the Left Is Happy?  The whole "global warming" schtick is predicated on the idea that fractional temperature deviations (what climatologists and geologists understood as a natural condition of the planet before their expertise could be used for political and financial gain) are a threat to human life.  Yet temperature fluctuations are poppycock compared to the loss of human life that will be precipitated by choking off the fuels necessary to generate electrical power.  Where electricity is neither stable nor cheap, surviving the winter with scant heat is never guaranteed.  Where refrigeration, water pumps, and lighting are scarce, so too are medicines, food, and personal security.  Killing electricity means killing people, plain and simple.

Big Tech censorship on climate change only hurts the nation.  The language police make us weaker intellectually by limiting the world in which we live.  The language around climate change is one more area the left wants to control, especially given that trillions of dollars in spending are on the line.  Big Tech is now doing its part to protect the Green New Deal and radical green ideology from dissenting views. [...] Data show that since the 1880s, the global temperature has risen 1° Fahrenheit.  But what else can we measure?  In that same period, the world population jumped sevenfold, and food production increased even more.  Remarkably, the number of people not living in extreme poverty increased at the same rate.  The infant-mortality rate fell from 165 per 100,000 to seven.  In 1880, more than 80 percent of the global population was illiterate.  Today, that number is around 13 percent.

We Are in This Conflict Whether We Like It or Not.  Propaganda is most effective when it is disseminated in small, continuous lumps over time so that should logical contradictions arise, they are small enough to be smoothed over and eliminated without a majority of people noticing.  An obvious example of governments' exploitation of time to subtly rewrite official propaganda so that it aligns with normal observation is the fifty-year shift in narratives linking man's use of hydrocarbon energy to his alleged imminent extinction.  Government efforts to stoke public fear have led to ominous warnings of a looming ice age, then a boiling planet, and now extreme weather in any form as justifications for why a small number of global elites must be given complete control over the planet's resources.  Even though the scientific argument for that contention is totally rewritten every few years to fit observable facts, the powers that be continue to insist that "the science is settled."  Every decade, we are told anew that unless central planners are empowered to rule the planet, we will all perish the decade after that.  Time lapse allows governments to smooth over past contradictions and pull off the con without the whole hoax crashing down around them.

Here's Why Climate Alarmists Are Ignoring All-Time Record Crop Production in India.  All-time record crop production in India belies the doomsday narrative of climate alarmists.  To no great surprise, the U.N. and media ignore the remarkable achievement of this country of 1.4 billion people because it contradicts a political agenda pursued with religious fervor.  Even as the world's largest democracy enhances global food security, the media spread news of the U.N.'s "code red" for humanity over August's specious report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that rising temperatures threaten the earth.  In fact, India's record food production contradicts claims about adverse climatic effects on crops. [...] Also important to note is that this remarkable success in food production would not have been possible without an environment favorable to crops.  What the media call a curse — increased levels of carbon dioxide and greater warmth — has been a blessing to farmers and consumers.  Yields of food crops — in India and worldwide — have benefited from the fertilization effect of carbon dioxide and the longer growing seasons resulting from natural increases in temperature.  Overall, agriculture certainly has not been hurt by weather; otherwise, such record harvests likely would have been impossible.

Green-energy profiteers usher in a dystopian nightmare.  Let me first set the record straight.  I have no problem with any form of energy.  We can use it all — coal, oil, gas, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass and, yes, even solar and wind.  What I and many reasonable Americans take issue with is the idiotic green agenda that has taken hold in this country, due to the myth of climate change.  I've said it before but I guess it bears repeating:  Climate change is real.  It's all the climate has ever done since there was first a climate on Earth.  Any moron can understand that.  What isn't real is man-caused climate change.  To prove this one only has to hearken back to years ago when no one used the term "climate change."  Back then it was "global warming."  But when was the last time you heard those two words.  Ever wonder why?  Well, because the "inconvenient truth" is that globe naturally warms and cools all the time, so the green profiteers can't be seen as wrong when the globe cools.  Call it climate change — rig the game, and they'll always be right.

COVID-19 Is the New Global Warming.  Despite their supposed apolitical nature, some issues develop along hyper-partisan fault lines and become a litmus test in identifying where someone rests along the ideological spectrum. [...] Take anthropogenic global warming as a prominent example.  This has been a central calling card for the Progressive cause.  They claim it's entirely the fault of conservatives — that heartless Republican businesspeople, in their relentless pursuit of immoral profits, willfully and callously disregard the environment and run their businesses in a deliberately "dirty" manner in order to maximize their earnings and keep their expenses, like best environmental practices and the purchase of costly pollution-reduction devices, to a minimum.  When the warming that was promised in the late '80s and early '90s failed to materialize by the early 2000s, Progressives changed the terms of the discussion from "global warming" to "climate change."  That way, they could blame any weather-related anomaly or damaging event on what they saw as conservatives' willful disregard for the environment.

Climate change panic is the next big thing (again).  The original earth day in 1970 was "celebrated" with protests against global cooling.  The villains were all the same only the narrative was inverted.  Evil capitalists were destroying the planet by making it too cold for us to survive.  That they were able to flip that scenario on its head is a testament to the limitless gullibility of the human being.  When the newfangled "global warming" crisis started to unravel, the left once again scrambled for an even scarier bogeyman.  What could be better than "climate change," a phrase that means everything and nothing?  Who would deny that change is happening?  It is the very nature of existence, except in the world of human beings where a constant is that people will accept oppression when they are told it is for their own good.  There has always been and there always will be climate change.  We have evidence of far greater warming and cooling trends in just the past thousand years.  Along with COVID, this is a tool to keep the population fearful and thus easily manipulated into surrendering their freedoms and God-given rights.

History reveals the ridiculousness of 'climate change' hysteria.  The environmental lobby is perhaps the most active and powerful influence in the federal government, spending countless millions to sway legislators to implement laws against fossil fuel use.  To assist them in their indoctrination ploy, they use the greatest motivator of all time:  fear.  If you scare people into believing that the sky is falling, they'll start wearing helmets when they leave home.  What better way to increase the size of government than to frighten the population into paying more taxes for "programs"?  You begin to realize that government is a hungry, relentless entity, which, although it has validity in many areas, is always on the prowl for more ways to build and fatten its insatiable appetite for power. [...] During the 1970s, the fear was of "global cooling."  When several sizzling summers occurred, that idea was abandoned as we entered the '80s with the notion of "acid rain," chemical droplets with elevated levels of hydrogen ions.  Soon, the "ozone hole" became part of our climate awareness vernacular.  That was followed by "global warming" in the '90s.

The 'Science' of Climate Change.  Why do politicians want to hype a nonexistent climate crisis?  In a word:  power.  By claiming that there is an urgent climate crisis the politicians can spend billions to fight the imaginary foe. [...] Richard Lindzen, one of the most accomplished climate scientists in the world by virtue of his discoveries, does not have to kowtow to the global warming mob.  In an essay he pointed out that scientific data that challenges the global warming hypothesis are simply changed.  He cites examples of how environmental extremists have infiltrated scientific organizations.  Tony Heller, an engineer and geologist, operates a long-running website, Real Climate Science.  He specializes in exposing the changed data mentioned by Richard Lindzen.  The promoters of climate change cherry pick data when they are not changing it.  Heller exposes the lie in the National Climate Assessment that heat waves are becoming more common.  He exposes "adjustments" to the U.S. temperature record to bring it into line with climate change predictions.

The Bidenization of America.  China has made it clear that the quality of water and air in their country is of no concern to anyone but the Chinese.  They remember that the Western powers and Japan had no consideration for environmental impacts while they massively industrialized, and only conveniently thought of such admirable concerns when they had completed their industrial development.  Only then environmental matters could be raised as an obstruction to those nations rising to compete with the West economically.  The Chinese, like the Indians, also have never hesitated to assert the view — widely held among the large and growing ranks of climate change skeptics or at least dissenters from extreme eco-solutions — that the whole projection of climate as a frightening and planet-destructive development is bunk.  That claim may be too dismissive, but it is a stronger argument than the Kerry-Biden-Obama horror movie of our climate's "existential crisis."

Nearly every nation except for one falls short in plans to curb global warming.  Nearly every nation is coming up short — most of them far short — in their efforts to fight climate change and the world is unlikely to hold warming to the internationally agreed-upon limit, according to a new scientific report.  Only one nation — tiny The Gambia in Africa — is on track to cut emissions and undertake its share of actions to keep the world from exceeding the Paris agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since pre-industrial times, the report said.  Only one industrialized nation — the United Kingdom — is even close to doing what it should to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases and finance clean energy for poorer nations, the Climate Action Tracker reported Wednesday [9/15/2021].

The Editor says...
What was so great about "pre-industrial times?"

Get ready for the left's climate-change 'emergency' lockdowns.  President Biden claims recent hurricanes prove we're in a "climate crisis" — "code red" for the world, he warns.  White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy adds that climate is now a "health emergency."  It's convenient for politicians to treat every hurricane, tornado and flood as an apocalyptic sign from Gaia — and then blame political apostates for offending the goddess.  But it's an irrational way to think about the world.  Because our situation is, in most ways, quantifiably better than before on nearly every front.  This reality is probably difficult to accept for a generation subjected to decades of fearmongering, but climate anomalies are nothing new.  When a freak snowstorm hit Texas this year, the administration used it to push draconian policies.  But the Texas storm was no different than the rare 1973 blizzard that hit the South.  It happens.  And there's nothing we can do.

Climate Change Is Not a Crisis.  President Joe Biden contends that the recent hurricanes that hit the United States prove we're in a "climate crisis."  It's a "code red" for the world, the president warns.  White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy added that climate is now a "health emergency."  It is, no doubt, quite convenient for politicians to treat every hurricane, tornado and flood as an apocalyptic sign from Gaea — and then blame political apostates for the existence of nature.  But it's an irrational way to think about the world.  Because our situation is, in most ways — including our ability to adapt to the vagaries of climate — quantifiably better than before on nearly every front.  This reality is probably difficult for a generation subjected to decades of fearmongering to accept, but climate anomalies are nothing new.  When a freak snowstorm hit Texas earlier this year, the administration used it to push draconian policy ideas.  But the Texas storm was no different than the rare 1973 blizzard that hit the South.  It happens.  And there's nothing we can do about it.

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXVIII.  What I refer to as the "Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time" is the systematic alteration of historical world temperatures to make it appear, falsely, that the most recent months and years are the "warmest ever."  The basic technique of the fraud is the artificial lowering of previously-reported data as to world temperatures in earlier years, in order to erase earlier warmth and amplify the apparent warming trend.  This is the 28th post in this series.  The previous post in the series appeared on October 5, 2020. [...] [Tony] Heller also noted, as I have many times, that NASA and NOAA make no secret of the fact that they are systematically altering and lowering earlier-year temperatures, Reality is that the data alterations are no secret, and that NOAA and NASA acknowledge that they do it.  The problem is not that the alterations are a secret, but that they are opaque.  You would think that it would be impossible for earlier-year temperatures to change at all, let alone that they would systematically change in a way that just happens to enhance the desired narrative of the promoters of the global warming scare.  The justifications for the alterations appear to be just so much bafflegab, completely lacking in specific rationales for each change that you would think would be required — particularly given that these temperature charts are being used as a basis for a multi-trillion dollar fundamental transformation of the world energy economy.

Greenhouse saturation research could kill the "climate emergency".  The "climate emergency" appears to have died, far out on the scientific frontier.  Word of this death has yet to reach the mainstream.  Professors William van Wijngaarden (Canada) and William Happer (USA) have published some extremely important research on the radiation saturation of the major greenhouse gases.  Their first report is titled simply "Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules".  It makes use of a major breakthrough in radiation physics.  Until recently the estimates of greenhouse potency were based on approximation bands of absorbed radiation wavelengths.  Now the authors have done line by line spectral analysis, looking at over 300,000 individual wavelengths within these bands.  It turns out that saturation occurs much sooner than previously thought.  In particular the primary greenhouse gases, CO2 and H2O, turn out to be "extremely saturated" at present atmospheric concentrations.

There's Nothing The U.S. Can Do To Affect Global Temperature.  Despite zero evidence that human greenhouse gas emissions are harming Earth, the Democrats, cheered by the media, continue to enact energy policies they say are necessary for saving our world.  But all they're doing is increasing energy scarcity, which forces prices higher, and ignoring facts that don't fit their narrative.  America's worst energy policy offender is California, where the ever-eager-to-mandate-and-forbid ruling class is outlawing automobiles that burn fossil fuels, halting electricity generation from conventional sources, and executing a war on gas stations.  It's all so entirely pointless.  California's humanity produces only about 1% of all global greenhouse gas emissions.  If the state fell into the ocean tomorrow, as some have predicted it will (it won't), the world thermometer wouldn't be moved one bit.  The story is the same for the entire country.

IPCC's 'No One Is Safe' Slogan Is Deeply Misleading:  Shellenberger.  The message stated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) report, warning that "nobody is safe" from human-caused climate change is "irresponsible and misleading," according to longtime environmental activist Michael Shellenberger.  The IPCC published a report in August stating that human-caused climate change is accelerating and that radical changes to human behavior are needed to avert disaster.  Following the findings, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said of the report that the "alarm bells are deafening" and the situation is a "code red for humanity."  Meanwhile, Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), said the findings showed that "nobody is safe.  And it is getting worse faster."  However, Shellenberger, who is the founder and president of the nonprofit Environmental Progress and the author of "Apocalypse Never:  Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All," disagrees with this sentiment.

On Comparing 30-Year "Climate Normals".  What is normal weather?  One doesn't spend much time learning about climatology before coming across a marvelous sound bite:  "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."  The catch is it's not clear how to measure what you expect.  We're a lot better at measuring weather.  The whole topic of measuring expectations deserves its own web page, as does the problem that we humans are pretty terrible at remembering weather, even extreme weather, and sometimes even recognizing extreme weather.  One way we define "normal" is that every ten years climatologists collect and average the previous thirty years of weather data, then release that as the "new normals."

A hurricane of misinformation on climate change.  Before Hurricane Ida even had the chance to dissipate into Tropical Storm Ida, Democratic politicians were already on Twitter using the natural disaster to score political points.  Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was typical:  "The destruction from Hurricane Ida is devastating," he tweeted.  "Our thoughts are with those in danger and with first responders saving lives.  But let's be clear.  If we do not act boldly to combat climate change, what we see today will become the norm as the planet becomes more uninhabitable."  It is always unsightly when politicians use other people's pain to advance their narrow pre-existing agenda.  But what makes Sanders's statement worth highlighting is that it is 100% false.

The Editor says...
Even an area that gets hit by a hurricane once in a while is far from "uninhabitable."

UN routinely warns us that we have just a few years left until catastrophe.  [Thread reader]  In 1972, half a century ago, Maurice Strong, first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe[.]  In 1982, Tolba, head of UN Environment Programme told the world that it had just 18 years before an environmental catastrophe as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust[.]  In 1989, a senior UN official warns Associated Press that we have to fix climate change by 1999 or climate change goes beyond human control[.]  In 1990, Tolba, head of UN Environment Programme told the world must fix global warming before 1995 — Otherwise, we'd lose the climate struggle[.]  In 2019, all the greats of the UN met to tell us that we have just 11 years to fix climate[.]

Pants On Fire:  U.N. Issues Another Climate Report.  [Scroll down]  In short, the IPCC has a habit of doctoring the summaries in an effort to frighten and manipulate the public.  And it's been doing so for some time.  According to Canadian academic and author Tim Ball, while the 2001 IPCC report "was the most influential in establishing global warming as a serious threat demanding political action," it "also achieved another distinction, unknown to the media, public and politicians."  A "disconnect between the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and the Science Report Of Working Group 1," he said, was particularly extreme.  "So much of the so-called science the IPCC created was to amplify the threat of human-produced CO2 to global warming," Ball wrote.  "The political mandate was the ultimate arbiter of what and how an issue was included."  When Ball wrote that six years ago, he wondered "how long the IPCC can stay in business and continue to push" its "totally discredited" hypothesis that man is warming his planet.  The 2021 report unfortunately indicates that the answer might be "forever."

Speaking of 'science,' which data show that humans, CO2, and fossil fuels cause global warming?  Another day, another dire warning about global warming.  The press and its taskmasters could essentially Xerox a copy of what they printed for the public in the Washington Post in 1922, or a UN report in 1989, or a UN report in 2019 for [their latest report]. [...] For decades, journalists, educators, scientists, bureaucrats, and other Democrats have colluded to spread these dire warnings, (misinformation) without scientific evidence, to scare and control the public.  We are repeatedly have been told that we only have a few years left to solve the problem.  The end date always evolves.  No matter how wrong these dire predictions are they just repeat them and say the science is settled to cut off debate.  Why are people who are always so wrong considered experts?  Many CEOs, Republicans, and others repeat the same claims without evidence because it is so much more pleasant to go along instead of being called anti-science, or worse still, "deniers."

'Nowhere to run': UN report says global warming nears limits.  Earth is getting so hot that temperatures in about a decade will probably blow past a level of warming that world leaders have sought to prevent, according to a report released Monday [8/9/2021] that the United Nations called a "code red for humanity."  "It's just guaranteed that it's going to get worse," said report co-author Linda Mearns, a senior climate scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.  "Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide." [...] The authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which calls climate change clearly human-caused and "unequivocal" and "an established fact," makes more precise and warmer forecasts for the 21st century than it did last time it was issued in 2013.

The Editor says...
Woo-woo-woo!  Ding-ding!  The U.N. issues a report!  What are they reporting, other than their own opinions?  Notice these three aspects of the typical UN alarmist report:  [#1] They say "climate change [is] clearly human-caused."  Did the climate not change before humans were around?  Did the climate ever change before the industrial revolution?  Did a hurricane ever hit the U.S. before the widespread use of the internal combustion engine?  [#2] Notice that they don't sound the alarm about global warming in February.  In the middle of August, it's much more believable.  [#3] Notice that the UN never comes out with a report saying it's already too late to stop the thermal runaway condition, no matter what we do.  They will never say this because the problem must always get more and more urgent, so the UN can be given more and more money and power.  If they ever say it's too late, the money would stop.

Biden's Six Months In Office Have Us On The Road To Communism.  Leftists have long known that they can only enact their utopian dreams with an endless parade of existential crises.  Global warming was just such a crisis, virtually brimming with potential until all the dire predictions came up woefully short.  People in the north still know what snow is like though it should have disappeared off the scene twenty years ago.  We don't hear much from Al Gore anymore.  Having made his fortune selling carbon indulgences, he's retired to enjoy his massive carbon footprint, which likely exceeds that of many small nations.  AOC's 12-year doomsday scenario will come and go, and nothing will have changed. [...] If her Green New Deal goes into effect, or the Paris climate hoaxers manage to siphon off American wealth, we may see doomsday for America but the world will be just fine.

Embarrassing the Predatory Left.  The Left's constituencies are most useful when they are seen as fundamentally helpless.  Any victim the Left chooses to embrace is treated as highly deserving of protection and this holds for the entire planet just as for any other lavishly pampered and infantilized constituency.  Any resistance to the Left's demands can then be condemned as heartlessness itself.  Climate change hysteria strikes us as — at best — a kind of absurdist theater, though in the final analysis, it must be said, it's just a bore.  Its promoters work to gin up a moral panic to which the public — to its credit — has proven largely unreceptive up to now.  The whole tedious crusade is hard to see as anything other than the boutique obsession of a pampered, sneering, badly educated, rote-credentialed pseudo-elite.  We strongly suspect the "climate science" that presently legitimates this hyped up "crisis" will someday take its rightful place alongside other historical embarrassments like phrenology, racist eugenics, and Lysenko's gene-free biology.  Concern for our shared environment should be uncontroversial, but much of what is sold as "environmentalism" is best understood in the context of the longstanding predatory practices of the tyrannical Left, with its ongoing effort to eradicate political diversity through moral intimidation.

How to Stop Global Warming:  Misery or Death.  [Scroll down]  From an environmental perspective, 10 billion humans is an unacceptable number.  There are two solutions.  One is to drastically reduce the carbon footprint of every human being on the planet.  This could be accomplished by mandating E.V.s, or no car at all, and by using taxes and zoning to force humans into smaller, more efficient apartments and eliminate suburban dwellings.  But housing and transportation would not be enough.  It would be necessary to slash electricity and other utility usage, since power plants are the largest source of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, and to outlaw animal products such as meat, eggs, and dairy.  It might also be necessary to limit travel and restrict land use so as to return land to a state of nature.  All of these "solutions" have been proposed, and in many places implemented, but alone they would not reduce carbon emissions to zero.  Indeed, they would not reduce emissions to any perceptible extent, since humans would go on requiring food, shelter, heat, air-conditioning, electricity, and other services that produce emissions.

The Editor says...
The article goes on to describe option #2, which is wholesale abortion, sterilization, and euthanasia.  No mention is made of option #3, which would be to leave things as they are, observe the minuscule and incremental changes in the climate, if any, and adapt to them.  All three options ignore the existence of God.  If you ignore God, (or if you think he's unaware of the average temperature on the Earth, or unable or unwilling to do anything about it,) you will live your life in constant fear of something, whether it's overpopulation, the long-term weather forecast or something else.

Happy Birthday, Global Warming.  This month, climate change celebrates its 33rd birthday.  On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified that the greenhouse effect had been detected.  "Global Warming Has Begun," The New York Times declared the next day.  Indeed, it had.  A year older than Alexander the Great when he died, climate change took less than one-third of a century to conquer the West.

Biden Administration Is Skewing Carbon Numbers to Push Regulations.  The social cost of carbon is a climate economics construct used to quantify the damages associated with carbon dioxide emissions.  The Biden administration wants to use the social cost of carbon in public policy to justify its regulatory agenda. [...] In a nutshell, we developed a multilayered case against the Biden administration using the social cost of carbon analysis as a basis, framework, or tool for guiding or informing federal agency regulatory, permitting, or procurement decisions.  Specifically, we argue that the social cost of carbon analysis depends too much on non-validated assumptions and inputs to be fit for policymaking.  The Interagency Working Group's 2021 interim technical support document utilizes questionable, cherry-picked assumptions and inputs to support the climate crisis narrative and promote climate policies whose costs would hugely exceed the undetectably small hypothetical benefits.

The Editor says...
The article above includes a deceptive photograph, showing the Miller Power Plant in Adamsville, Alabama, from which water vapor, not carbon, not carbon dioxide, is being released into the atmosphere.  Notice that the vapor comes out of the stack and is quickly absorbed into the surrounding air.  Smoke doesn't do that.

Following the Scientists Who Were Destroying America Just to Spite Trump.  For the past year and a half of COVID, we have been told by those supposedly in the know, to "follow the science."  Those who question the science are at best called names, like "deniers" or "racists", and at worst, lose their jobs and reputations, and are banned from social media. [...] It started with the climate change movement.  Back in the 1970s we faced a crisis of global cooling.  A few decades later it changed to global warming, where the planet would heat up enough to melt the polar icecaps, flooding coastal cities.  When these fatalistic predictions failed to pan out, the movement created a new name, climate change, that conveniently covered both warm and cool temperatures, rain, drought, storms, and all other forms of weather, attributing normally changing weather to something nefarious[.]

The left is pursuing an agenda that benefits just a few of them.  Climate change, COVID, violence in our cities, homelessness, borders and immigration, education, race; all of it is a means to an end. [...] Core sample studies show glacial history.  Climate has constantly changed, from the Ice Age to a warming period, back to chilling again.  Not one of these major climate changes was wrought by man, but by the changing of the earth's tilt and orbit around the sun, by upheavals under the earth's crust, and by the sun's activity.  How, then, does anyone swallow the myth of man-made climate change?  It's a vehicle to make people guilty and afraid, a way to control us, to enforce sacrificing common sense, in favor of allowing charlatans to take advantage and get rich.  Cleaning up our environment should be a separate issue.

The Death of Rational Science.  [Scroll down]  In the second world, "science" is still revered, but their science is a religion, with rules and dogma, where research is cherry-picked to support the "proper" conclusions, and questioning their science is considered unforgiveable heresy.  One of the first tenets of this new religion was worship of the earth and the need to protect "her" from global warming.  Scientific studies were produced that showed an alarming trend toward ever-increasing temperatures with disastrous results.  Even though further review of their data showed that their various charts and graphs used to prove their points were cherry-picked to take sections of historical climate data from different sources at different times, the obsession with climate change continues.

One-third of Americans unwilling to spend $1 to fight climate change.  President Biden wants to spend in excess of $1 trillion to combat climate change, but more than one-third of Americans are unwilling to chip in a single buck.  A poll of 1,200 registered voters released Tuesday by the Competitive Enterprise Institute found that 35% were unwilling to spend any of their own money to reduce the impact of climate change, with another 15% saying they would only go as high as $10 per month.  Another 6% said they would be willing to spend between $11 and $20 per month.  At the other end of the spectrum were those who said they would part with between $901 and $1,000 per month on climate — they numbered 1%.

This Is The Only Question We Need To Ask Supporters of Climate Change Policies.  To believe mankind is responsible for any apocalyptic changes requires a religious fanaticism, along with a sense of hubris, arrogance, and narcissism on orders of magnitude.  Moreover — and this is the root of my appeal — it relies on a suspension of belief that those most equipped to deal with the crisis will magnanimously leverage their wealth, power, and influence for the greater good.  How have Greta Thunberg or John Kerry made your life better as they jet set around the world, visiting lands only dreamt about by the vast majority of the world's population?  Do they appear to be abiding by calls for restrictions of fossil fuel consumption? [...] Again, the issue at hand is not the denial of omnipresent climate change.  The issue — the veritable crux of the issue — is whether or not these policies make any sense at all in preserving life and liberty, or do any general good at all.  Here it is:  Do you think the elites and the super wealthy will ever change their polluting habits?

It's Not About Energy, It's About Power.  One of the argument of the globalists is that the amount of available fossil fuel cannot generate the energy required to lift the Third World to the First.  Hence, the First World must reduce its energy consumption such that both First and Third Worlds come to a median usage — bad for the First World, great for the Third World (for now) and perfect for the elites no longer having the global middle class competing with them for energy and prosperity.  This is what the "climate change" hoax is about — not CO2.  The poor become richer, the middle becomes poorer, and the ruling class continues their accelerating use of energy, and accumulation of wealth and power at the expense of the other eight billion human beings on planet earth.  In short: the future is put on indefinite hold and the global poor never reach their potential as human beings.  If you want to look for "systemic racism," you just found it.

Dr Ian Plimer: 'We are being misled' on the climate crisis.  Geologist Ian Plimer says we are being "misled" with information which is "specifically plucked out" to make it look as though we are in a climate crisis.  [Video clip]

The Net-Zero Shell Game and Joe Biden's Deceptions.  President Biden's Earth Day announcement that the United States is to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% from 2005 levels (equivalent to a 42% cut of 2019's pre-Covid emission levels) within nine years comes with a double deception — one of cause and the other of effect.  It aims to force America to reach net-zero no later than 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.  This, the White House claims, is what "the science demands."  In fact, it is the first deception.  The 1.5-degree limit has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and green ideology.  The 1992 UN framework convention on climate change set the aim of avoiding "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate system, a problem it left undefined.  Four years later, the European Council's environment ministers filled in the gap.  On behalf of the European Union, it declared that "the Council believes that global average temperatures should not exceed 2 degrees above pre-industrial level."  The pre-industrial baseline is the giveaway that this is ideology, not science.  No one can be sure what average global temperature was back then, but according to green ideology, the industrial revolution is the original sin of modern civilization.

Our Quasi-Soviet States of America.  The left wants people to be frightened.  Biden spouts global warming propaganda and advocates wind and solar energy as a preventive for the supposed global warming disaster.  This is deeply junk science.  The predictions of climate disaster are from computer models that provide thinly veiled fake scientific backing.  In the case of wind and solar energy the stupidity is easily demonstrated since the facts are not hidden by the obscurantism of the climate models.  This is yet another aspect of the campaign to confuse and terrorize the citizens.

Do We Know Earth's Global Temperature?  The next target of mainstream media propaganda is to convince the public that human industry is causing climate change. [...] I suggest laying the axe to the root:  Humans have never actually measured the temperature of planet Earth.  Let's just start with that.  Is the Earth getting warmer, cooler, or staying the same?  Without knowing the planet's overall temperature, we cannot say.  Weather stations were never intended to measure global temperatures.  They were designed and installed to assist ships and airplanes with navigation — not to measure the Earth on a planetary scale.  The limits of scientific measurements must be kept in mind.

Manmade Climate Change; The Story & The Reality.  Tomer (Tom) D. Tamarkin discusses the science, history, and politics of the AGW and manmade climate change alarmism debate.  He explains the ultimate climate change alarmists goal: drastic population reduction and socialistic one world government.  The method is to indoctrinate people into believing that fossil fuels create climate change and only renewable energy is safe.  Watch Rabbi Avraham Schwartz and Tom Tamarkin discuss manmade climate change; the biggest fraud and deception ever created by man against mankind.

Most Americans want climate change addressed 'right now': poll.  The majority of Americans believe climate change needs to be addressed immediately, according to a CBS News poll published Sunday [4/18/2021].  Fifty-six percent of Americans said people should address the problem "right now," while 11% said climate change should be tackled "in the next few years." [...] But roughly one-third of Americans believe combating climate change can wait.  According to CBS News, the people who feel this way point to four reasons:  36% say climate change is exaggerated, 31% say there are other more pressing issues, 23% believe there's nothing that can be done, and 9% say it costs too much to deal with it.

Climate-Alarmist Junk Science and the Base-Line Fallacy.  With the composite president known as "Joe Biden" pushing ahead with implementing the Green New Deal, the climate-alarmist industrial complex will be ramping up its propaganda to scare as many people as possible into believing that Planet Earth is about to burn up. [...] So now is a good time to explore the biggest fallacy of all underlying climate-alarmist junk science.  This is the "base-line fallacy," which is a cousin of the statistical "base-rate fallacy"; both result from probabilistic errors when assessing the likelihood of scenarios based on the pattern of prior events.  The "base-line fallacy" involves the selection of a starting-point in the dataset which conveniently omits confounding data, so that the conclusion reached is determined not by objective patterns in the whole dataset but by short-term trends in the partial snapshot of data used in the study.  This outcome may be the result of an innocent error by the researchers, and peer-review should pick this up and cause it to be corrected.  But this does not appear to have happened with climate-alarmist research.  Instead, it is beyond doubt that the base-line fallacy is embedded in the research methodology of such studies and is actually normal practice.  This is not credible science.  It is political ideology masquerading as — at best — junk science.  It's possibly the biggest intellectual fraud thus far in the history of science.

Book: The Science Against Human Caused Carbon Dioxide Warming.  History, science, and facts (not alarmist computer models) when properly examined, prove that Human-caused CO2 Global Warming is a fraud.  In his new book William Masters shows how the 'greenhouse gas effect' — the cornerstone of man-made global warming — is fraudulently cobbled together.  The author takes you from the discovery of Infrared Radiation in 1800 to what passes as our present-day's understanding of climate and the newest phase:  Cosmo-Climatology unfolding at the CERN Laboratory, Geneva, Switzerland.  This new volume explains the errors made in the so-called Greenhouse Effect when natural philosophers first began formulating a climate theory over a century ago.  Errors that remain embedded from then until now include a crass inability to measure the Sun's radiation despite the overlooked sister field of space science showing we are well equipped today with our modern technology to do a much better job.  Where Victorian amateur scientists (and modern academics!) guessed, impartial and astute researchers may accurately measure such parameters and so the discrepancies between fact and fiction woven into official climate theory can be exposed.

Perceptions of climate impacts at odds with scientific data.  A new Savanta ComRes poll commissioned by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) has revealed low levels of public awareness of key trends relating to climate change and international development.  The survey of British adults suggests that the public perceive the impacts of climate change to be more negative than the academic research would suggest.  However, there is also a significant minority of the public who say they are 'not very' or 'not at all' concerned by climate change.  In total, 28% of respondents said they were 'very concerned' about climate change, 42% said 'fairly concerned', 18% were 'not very concerned' and 6.4% described themselves as 'not at all concerned'.

Climate change:  Net zero targets are 'pie in the sky'.  Sharp divisions between the major global emitters have emerged at a series of meetings designed to make progress on climate change.  India lambasted the richer world's carbon cutting plans, calling long term net zero targets, "pie in the sky."  Their energy minister said poor nations want to continue using fossil fuels and the rich countries "can't stop it".  China meanwhile declined to attend a different climate event organised by the UK.  Trying to lead 197 countries forward on the critical global issue of climate change is not a job for the faint hearted, as the UK is currently finding out.

Climate change is the perfect tool to justify complete control.  COVID was a blessing for the Democrats.  Primarily affecting older people (mostly Trump voters) and the infirm, it allowed the shutdown of most small business in America (again, mostly Trump-supporters).  It permitted millenarian Democrat governors to test the efficacy of using fear to impel acquiescence to emergency rule by diktat.  It showed people will voluntarily cede income and freedom in the face of an "existential emergency." [...] The COVID social experiment in control was a smashing success.  Yet, with COVID winding down, Democrats need a new apocalypse.  Fortuitously, "climate change" is perfect.  Faux though its existentialism may be, as a crisis with broad support among the elite left and their minions, it is a cataclysm made to order.  Impending climate catastrophe cannot be disproved — hot weather, cold weather, drought, flooding — everything can be portrayed as "proof."  The benefits promised are decades in the future.  So is its inevitable failure.  People will not see the scam until it is too late.  As a scheme for total control, climate change is even better than COVID.

The Politicization of Energy Policy Needs to Stop.  Climate change isn't a scam, since climates are constantly changing.  Climate action or deciding whether or not man is causing anthropogenic global warming is where the debate should take place.  Trillions of dollars are being spent with no positive influence on emissions, pollution, or the climate since "nature as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming."  Understanding the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate modeling is another point of contention distorting energy policies in the U.S. and globally.  These models have repeatedly overestimated the amount of anthropogenic warming.  The gap is far and wide between what is understood about the climate and the modeled outcomes.  The IPCC has done a good job revealing warming is lower than previously thought, models are inadequate for setting energy policy void of politics, CO2 is food for plants and the earth, and natural disasters are not increasing.

Why Global Warming was a Total Farce and It's Now Incorporated into the Great Reset.  This is the Western Plague in research.  They always seek to reduce whatever it is to a single cause and effect.  I am so tired of this nonsense about CO2.  Here in Flordia, we had a red tide and instantly the politicians were blaming it on farmers that certainly are not in this area.  All I did was Google red tides and there it was, the first one reported was by the Spanish during the 17th century long before farmers in Florida using chemicals. [...] We are dealing with people who think only in a single dimension and constantly try to reduce everything to a single cause and effect.  They are seriously causing the West to collapse and their theories of Climate Change are leading us into absolute disaster post-2032.  They will not tolerate opposition.

Global lockdown every two years needed to meet Paris CO2 goals — study.  Carbon dioxide emissions must fall by the equivalent of a global lockdown roughly every two years for the next decade for the world to keep within safe limits of global heating, research has shown.  Lockdowns around the world led to an unprecedented fall in emissions of about 7% in 2020, or about 2.6 [billion] tonnes of CO2, but reductions of between 1 [billion] and 2 [billion] tonnes are needed every year of the next decade to have a good chance of holding temperature rises to within 1.5C or 2C of pre-industrial levels, as required by the Paris agreement.  Research published on Wednesday [3/3/2021] shows that countries were beginning to slow their rates of greenhouse gas emissions before the Covid-19 pandemic struck, but not to the levels needed to avert climate breakdown.

The Editor says...
At least this article answers one question:  The Paris agreement wants global temperatures to return to "pre-industrial levels."  Why?  Even if industrial activity is responsible for the very slight warming of the last 150 years, and it isn't, the world isn't going to forfeit all industrial activity for the sake of achieving the Goldilocks Temperature.  Moreover, the threat of a "climate breakdown" is ridiculous, because global average temperatures have been warmer in years past than they are now, and the climate didn't break down.  Nor will it ever do so.

After the Leftist Reign of Terror, the Deluge.  The Left is required by its own pronouncements to solve every problem, real or imagined.  Yet because they are the ones now in power, all problems and solutions rest on their shoulders.  Problems must always be created or amplified so the Left may continue its mission by always having to "do something."  Climate change is the perfect example since were all going to die unless government "does something" to forestall the apocalypse.  So naturally, anyone who does not vote in favor of so — called environmental initiatives, or supports the president on his job-destroying executive orders, will become the enemy.  That will be true of any of the Left's policy desires.  Oppose and die.  The most radical elements, seeing that their side is now in power, is going to demand that the long-awaited solutions be implemented.  This is exactly what we saw when Obama was elected president.  Yet because most of the problems the Left creates are imaginary, there are no real solutions.  When policy is put into place to address these alleged problems, they end up harming the very people the solutions are supposed to protect.

UN Sends Dire Warning Over Global Progress on Emissions Goals.  A United Nations report released Friday totals up new national climate commitments and concludes that the effort "falls far short" of what's necessary to slow global warming.  How far short?  To have a chance of meeting the Paris Agreement's lower limit of 1.5° Celsius of warming, nations must cut their emissions of carbon dioxide to 45% below their 2010 level by 2030 and eliminate their impact completely by mid-century.  But by meeting all of the updated commitments, countries would lower their CO₂ emissions by just half a percent.

The Editor says...
Once again, the central question is this:  The goal is an increase of 1.5 degrees of warming — compared to what?  Who chose the starting point?  Which bureaucrat decides what the earth's ideal temperature is?  Who can say with any certainty that 2.5 degrees of warming (on the same arbitrary scale) would be catastrophic?  The people making these pronouncements watch too many movies.

Report: Reducing CO2 in Atmosphere Would Require COVID-Like Lockdowns for Decades.  A study by researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology (KIT) in Germany showed that because of the lockdowns imposed by COVID-19, CO2 emissions worldwide were estimated to be 8% lower in 2020, but measurements so far have revealed no CO2 decrease in the atmosphere.  In addition, the study said that reaching the Paris Accord goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would require similar COVID-like lockdowns every year. [...] In a statement, KIT said, "The corona pandemic has changed both our working and our private lives.  People increasingly work from home, have video conferences instead of business trips, and spend their holidays in their home country.  The lower traffic volume also reduces CO2 emissions.  Reductions of up to eight percent are estimated for 2020."

The Editor says...
The goal of "limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius" assumes that we all agree about the facts:  [#1] In what (Goldilocks) year was the global average temperature just right, so that anything more than 1.5 degrees above that temperature would be too hot?  What happens when the global average temperature reaches 1.51 degrees on this arbitrary scale?  [#2] How can any of the global warming alarmists be sure that we wouldn't be better off with one or two degrees of warming?  [#3] Water vapor — not carbon dioxide — is the primary greenhouse gas, and it cannot be eliminated from the atmosphere; therefore, it is pointless to worry about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  [#4] It is also pointless to worry about CO2 when China and India obviously don't share that concern.

Global Warming Alarmists Keep Letting Their Masks Slip, Reveal Their True Motivations.  Give the green shirts long enough and they will reveal their true intentions.  This happened most recently when a Massachusetts official said "we have to break" the will of the average person to cut greenhouse gas emissions.  It's another in a long line of admissions made by the climatistas — thank you, Steven Hayward, for adding that descriptive term to our lexicon — that inadvertently exposes their authoritarian urges.  Ranting last month before the Vermont Climate Council, David Ismay, Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker's undersecretary for climate change, said that "60% of our emissions come from residential heating and passenger vehicles," produced by people on "the street" and seniors on fixed incomes.

The Editor says...
[#1] If "60% of [y]our emissions come from residential heating and passenger vehicles," that means your state has little or no industrial activity.  [#2] "Emissions" could include just about anything, including water vapor and carbon dioxide, which are harmless.  [#3]  The sun warms the earth.  "Emissions" do not.  No laws will ever affect the output power of the sun.  [#4] Any restrictions imposed by a single U.S. state would be offset by China and India in a few minutes.

One week in, Biden administration shows its exquisite cruelty.  [Scroll down]  So along with Biden's dictatorial executive orders comes Schumer's plan to further constrain our freedoms due to the "climate emergency."  But there is no climate emergency.  It's just another hoax, a fear-mongering ruse to create a global government.  The planet has survived all manner of climate changes.  We humans can no more affect the climate here than we can on Mars.  And even if we could, we are not responsible for the irresponsibility of nations like China and India re: filthy air.  The Paris Climate Accord is only about making U.S. taxpayers pay billions of dollars to those nations to equalize the quality of life on the planet.  Not a single prediction of the Gorist climate alarmists has come true.  Snow still falls from the sky; there are no more hurricanes than normal; polar bears are alive and thriving; droughts occur here and there as they have throughout the millennia.  But the Biden administration is going to use climate alarmism to continue restricting the American population from living their lives.  President Trump energized our economy, made us energy independent.  Biden has in the span of a week tanked it in order to make us dependent on Saudi Arabia again.  He is about to ban coal-mining, too.  What will happen to those miners?

Climate Ambitions [are] Worse than Climate Change.  The December 12 Climate Ambition Summit 2020, it did not receive much attention, nor did it deserve to.  The UN holds a major climate conference at the end of every year under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.  (UNFCCC).  Several smaller conferences are held during the year leading up to the final Conference of the Parties (COP).  This year would have seen COP26, but it was postponed until November 2021 because of COVID-19. Thus, the Climate Ambition Summit was a virtual stand-in event which denied politicians, bureaucrats, and activists their chance to party for a week in some five-star venue while demanding that the common people of the world cut back their living standards to "save the planet."  Last Year's COP25 was deemed a failure and this year followed suit.

Summarizing Joe Biden.  Biden is a fervent believer in the "anthropogenic climate change" nonsense.  He's said that one of the first things he'd do is rejoin the Paris Climate Accords, which would require the U.S. to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.  That would strangle our economy and have no effect on global emissions because China, Russia, and India won't limit their carbon emissions.

New York 'Climate Clock' highlights decades of premature prophecies of global warming doomsday.  In honor of "Climate Week," New York City is playing host to a massive "Climate Clock" purporting to count down the years, days and minutes until the world reaches a climate catastrophe point-of-no-return. [...] The "Climate Clock" generated headlines across the world for its novelty and striking presentation of what activists claim is a final deadline before global temperatures reach a point from which there is no turning back.  Yet such prophecies are nothing new from climate scientists and activists, who have repeatedly warned the world over recent decades that it was very near the point of no return regarding carbon emissions.  Among the earliest such warnings was one from Noel Brown, who in 1989 led the U.N. Environment Program in New York.  In that year, Brown warned that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000," as a contemporary Associated Press report put it.

Climate Change:  Most Brazen Scientific Hoax In Human History.  [Scroll down]  Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the UN's top climate officials, effectively admitted that the organization's public position on climate change is a hoax.  The same admission was made in July 2019 by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who told governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) that the Green New Deal is not about saving the planet:  It wasn't originally a climate thing at all ... we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.  In other words, the intent of the Green New Deal is to use climate alarmism as a false flag excuse for dismantling America's capitalist economy. [...] Powerful globalists in this country feel it's not fair that billions of people in the world sleep on the ground in mud huts, while Americans sleep on soft mattresses in air-conditioned comfort.  The progressive elites who feel that way also believe that America's wealth must therefore be "shared" to an unprecedented extent with poor nations of the world.  Global wealth redistribution is the foremost tenet of communism, and those who advocate it are by definition communists, whether they are open about it or not.

Amid COVID-19, Americans don't care about climate change anymore.  Battered by pandemic and economic collapse, do Americans have the capacity to care about the environment?  Not so much, judging by a national poll we just conducted.  We asked a panel of U.S. adults a series of questions about today's most crucial issues, environmental policy options, and their own behavior.  In all three categories, I was personally surprised and discouraged to discover that our devotion to the world around us is flagging.  In a survey we at the Harris Poll conducted last December, American adults said climate change was the number one issue facing society.  Today, it comes in second to last on a list of a dozen options, ahead of only overpopulation.  Among Gen X men, in fact, more than third dismiss climate change as unimportant.  COVID-19 and the recession have, of course, reordered priorities around the world.  Still, the coronavirus didn't elbow aside other issues as muscularly as it did climate change.

The Climate Virus:  Hysteria Needs To Shelter In Place.  [Scroll down]  That's a heavy load of mania for the public to bear.  So we'd like to present a single headline in rebuttal:  "Climate-change hysteria costs lives — but activists want to keep panic alive."  It tops an op-ed in the New York Post written by Michael Shellenberger, who last month apologized, "on behalf of environmentalists," for being part of the "climate scare we created over the last 30 years." [...] He said he decided to speak out last year "after it became clear to me that alarmism was harming mental health."  The author and activist cited "a major survey of 30,000 people around the world," which discovered "nearly half believed climate change would make humanity extinct," and reported that mental-health professionals are routinely finding "themselves addressing adolescent anxiety over climate."  One in five United Kingdom children, he says, have "reported having nightmares about it."

Global Cooling Gives Nightmares To Global Warming Alarmists.  Cycles of sun spots are fairly predictable and the current cycle is looking more and more like the Maunder Minimum that created the "Little Ice Age" between 1650 and 1715.  The story below is largely propaganda that minimizes the story of impending global cooling.  The article also cites Imperial College London, which was directly responsible for the Great Panic of 2020 when it released Professor Neil Ferguson's trashy computer model on the COVID-19 pandemic.  With global warming's dead horse, this alarmist crowd needed a new champion to drive the world into their coveted deep transformation, and the coronavirus was the perfect replacement.

We Must Stop Falling for the Coronavirus Moral Crusade.  British political economist Joseph Sternberg authored an Apr. 8 Wall Street Journal editorial addressing ways "fearmongering" tactics are often applied to secure public compliance with draconian public policies that violate our normative and legal societal freedoms. [...] As Sternberg concludes, it was all about stoking fear and guilt.  I will argue that no previous political fear and shame-stoking crusade has been nearly so successful nor dangerous as that of the hysterically hyped climate change scare movement.  Based upon overheated climate model projections that have never comported with actually documented real-world observations, "experts" push draconian energy policies that call for banishing fossil fuels that provide 80% of U.S. and global energy; decimating essential, reliable electricity supplies; closing down countless industries, companies and jobs; and impoverishing our quality of life.  The purported solution is to replace that vast majority of vital energy with anemic and unreliable wind and solar sources that collectively and intermittently provide about 3 percent of America's needs.

Globalists are Now Talking about 'Flattening the Climate Curve' to Stop Global Warming.  With the notion of "flattening the curve" now burned into the minds of traumatized individuals worldwide, the globalists are attempting to re-appropriate the familiar propaganda line in their war against so-called climate change.  The World Economic Forum (WEF), which works hand-in-hand with the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations (UN), is urging various governments to focusing on flattening the "climate curve," whatever that is supposed to mean, when the coronavirus pandemic comes to an end.

A Science Project in Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day.  Why have we been repeatedly told that the science is settled when the data don't support the theory?  Why have the dire predictions of the last 100 years been completely wrong? (The answer is clearly that the scientific data don't support the predictions).  Does anyone really think government bureaucrats and politicians can control something as big and variable as the climate forever if we just hand them trillions of our hard-earned dollars?  Why are people who tell the truth that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally called stupid and anti-science when they are stating clear facts?  Why are people who don't agree with the theory called climate change deniers when they have never denied that the climate is and has always changed?  Why have the people who push the theory so anxious to cut off debate?

How long do you wait for something to not happen?  [Scroll down]  A variation on this ploy is global warming.  This one, they pushed out about twelve years.  One refinement is to push it out twelve years today, twelve years from tomorrow, and always twelve years without ever starting the countdown.  Another refinement of this technique is to run out the clock and claim that the efforts to avoid the catastrophe were successful or at least successful enough to avoid any obvious signs of our ultimate destruction.  Another refinement in this line came after doom was predicted from global warming.  After the initial prediction of disaster by global warming, nothing much happened.  No warming.  The brain trust quickly moved to climate change.  Thus, any change, whether warming or cooling, was a sign that the end is near.

Liberal Nonsense Is Looking Dumber Than Ever Now.  [Scroll down]  During this pandemic, we've seen our scientists both do some amazing things and also screw up incredibly.  You had scientists in China who gave us false information — whoa, you mean sometimes people lie about science in pursuit of a political agenda?  Does noticing that make us hate science?  And look at how our own scientists' track record.  Does hydroxychloroquine work or not?  The science isn't settled.  Why do their infection models change every few hours?  Again, unsettled science.  We're not asking for perfection, but we also should not be asked to believe in perfection.  These guys can't accurately predict what is going to happen tomorrow yet a couple months ago we were being told that we hate science because we doubted they could foresee exactly what was going to happen in a century.  Hey, we just wrecked our booming economy for a real threat.  Do you think that after this we're going to be eager to do that again for the fake threat that is the global warming hoax?

What Is Earth's Temperature, Now or Then?  We cannot know the temperature of the planet thousands or millions of years ago if we cannot even measure it today.  Yes, the question is one single temperature of the entire planet.  Not the temperature in Nome, Alaska or Dallas, Texas, or Sydney, Australia or in your home town.  One single temperature reading for the entire globe.  To put it that way immediately sounds strange.  But if we don't have a single temperature reading for the entire planet for today, how can we say if the planet is getting warmer or cooler or not changing at all?  We cannot talk about the temperature in, say, Geneva or London or New York City only.  The question is whether the entire planet is getting warmer, not isolated cities.

It's Time for Conservatives to Own the Climate-Change Issue.  There is an interesting political tactic often employed by the Left, and it follows a predictable pattern.  First, identify a problem most of us can agree on.  Second, elevate the problem to a crisis.  Third, propose an extreme solution to said crisis that inevitably results in a massive transfer of power to government authorities.  Fourth, watch as conservatives take the bait and vociferously reject the extreme solutions proposed.  Fifth and finally, accuse those same conservatives of being too heartless or too stupid to solve the original problem on which we all thought we agreed.  This is the pattern we have seen play out with respect to climate change.

How to Measure the Temperature of the Earth.  As concerns man-made climate change:  "The temperature of the Earth" is an ambiguous term that cannot mean anything.  At any given time it is possible to measure the temperature of some very small part of the Earth, such as, perhaps, a shot glass of water.  At that same moment, other temperatures of the Earth that could be measured will show a variation from the temperature of molten rock (1,300 to 2,200°F) to polar ice (32 to -76°F).  Daily variation of the same place on Earth can be 50 to 60°F.  Seasonal variation can be well over 100°F in high latitudes.  Conceptually, we could imagine, but not actually measure, every possible place and thing, at every possible time through all the seasons, and then average these data.  To detect "global warming," we would have to modify these data to include the specific heat of every thing measured, as well as the latent heat of all the things that change phase such as water, which appears as liquid, vapor, and ice.  Conceptually, yes; actually, no.  Not possible.

Pseudoscience doesn't get much more pretentious than this.  A new report by a joint commission of the World Health Organization, the medical journal The Lancet and UNICEF has ranked the United States the 39th best country on Earth for raising children, behind virtually every country in Europe and also lots of other places.  Scratch the surface and you'll discover what is driving the report:  climate-change alarmism.  In every way they can think of, elites are trying to make ordinary Americans desperate about climate change, so they can wheel their Trojan horse full of policy proposals into the United States.  The Lancet study was rigged to deliver the desired outcome of a low finish for the United States.  Our low ranking was mainly due to our coming in 151st out of 159 countries for "sustainability."

Global Warming is Not About Controlling The Weather, It's About Controlling You!  [Energy expert Steve] Milloy said CO2 emissions are never going to go down because they are a product of human progress.  But we shouldn't worry because this is just another sign of rising living standards.  "The bottom line is 'climate' is not about controlling the weather; it's about controlling you," Milloy told Marlow, in a broad-ranging discussion about global warming and the hypocrisy of the environmental movement.

Warming and the Snows of Yesteryear.  I was recently reminded of one of the most common misconceptions about our changing climate that is often accepted as fact by climate skeptics and true believers alike.  Last week a commentary written by a fellow geologist and colleague lamented the less snow and cold in recent winters compared to the winters of his youth in Kentucky in the 1950s and 60s.  He also related a talk he had with an octogenarian in Europe over the holidays who told him that he also recalled common snow during Christmas in Germany but alas, no longer.  This nearly universally held belief that even the most skeptical of us tend to believe is "warming by recollection."  Virtually every person from snowy climes claims that winters today are nothing like they were when they were a child.  This recollection reinforces the thought that we are experiencing global warming within our own lifetime.  Never mind that the slight warming of ~0.6°F (0.3°C) that a typical 45-year-old may have experienced since that big snowfall when he was five years old is much too slight to be recognizable by anyone.

Why "global warming" came to be called "climate change".  When the accelerated warming trend that began in the 1980s ran out of steam in 1997, what would become an extended leveling-off period set in.  Instead of acknowledging their dire predictions of unstoppable rising temperatures were embarrassingly wrong, climate doomsayers came up with a new tag for the alleged threat.  What was once referred to almost exclusively as "global warming" was quietly given an alter ego: "climate change."  Since global temperatures were in a virtual flatline, claims of cataclysmic warming were no longer believable. [...] Since runaway warming wasn't happening, they concocted the specious narrative that extreme weather events, every one of them, are caused by, you guessed it:  climate change.  Almost overnight, climate change was made the scapegoat for every severe hurricane, drought, flood, heat wave and blizzard that appeared, as if such unpleasant things had never before occurred.

What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change.  Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing.  Patrick Moore explains why "climate change," far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.  [Video clip]

Climate Alarmist Banks Go Carbon-colonialist.  Africa has the world's lowest electrification rate.  Its power consumption per capita is just 613 kilowatt-hours per year, compared to 6,500 kWh in Europe and 13,000 in the United States, African Development Bank (AfDB) President Akinwumi Adesina observed in July 2017. [...] In 2018, the bank approved seed money for a Nigerian coal project and geared up to finance a 350 MW coal plant in Senegal.  It also initiated plans for a $2-billion coal-fired power station in the Kenya's port city of Lamu, after the IMF, World Bank and other western lenders rebuffed Kenya.  But then Mr. Adesina and the AfDB caved in to carbon colonialist pressure.  The bank now says almost nothing about coal or even natural gas.  Its new themes include:  responding to global concerns about climate change, gradually adopting a "low-carbon and sustainable growth path," significantly reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and transitioning to "green growth" and "clean renewable energy,"

When Warming is Cooling!  The media has been awash with doomsday headlines, trumpeting a human-caused "climate crisis" simply because the estimated average global temperature has risen about 1.7°F since the end of the cold Little Ice Age 150 years ago.  However, the Arctic has been the greatest climate outlier and its much warmer temperatures, averaging 3.6°F higher than the 1951-1990 average, has shifted the global warming average upwards.  Furthermore, increased ventilation of stored ocean heat has contributed to much of the Arctic's recent high temperatures.  Ventilating heat warms the air but cools the ocean, and climate history reveals ventilating heat has caused several bouts of extreme warming.

Climate change hysteria is the smokescreen for communism's advancement in America.  Just as we are fully aware (at least we should be) that the Green New Deal is an economic plan clothed in the glossy robes of climate change, so too should we be realizing that the entire climate change movement is being driven by a desire for a communist near-future in America.  I assume, or at least I hope, that most activists in the climate change movement do what they do because they sincerely believe the world is going to be uninhabitable in the near future if we don't act immediately.  But just as these people willfully ignore actual scientific data in favor of the pseudo-science cited by their movement, so too have they willfully ignored the fact that the only possible "solution" to the climate change "problem" is giving up everything:  Our property, our rights, and ability to act as individuals.

The Business of Climate Change.  Saving the planet takes money, and lots of it.  Money is both the theme and the subtext of the latest round of UN climate talks being held here — a vast river of cash flows through the UN climate process.  Formally, the meeting is about nailing down one of the more obscure provisions of the Paris Agreement:  Article 6, which provides for market-based instruments so that countries can trade their way out of their decarbonization commitments.  Billions of cross-border dollars and transaction fees hang on the outcome.  With the negotiations concerning mind-paralyzing definitions of interest only to the most intrepid climate geeks, business and finance leaders could wind up taking center stage.  When they first started coming to climate conferences, it was to observe and advise.  Now it's to show-and-tell their green virtue.  "Momentum is there," declared Paul Polman, the former Uniliver CEO.  "Climate change is the biggest business opportunity of all time."  We're close to several policy tipping points, he suggested.

The Global Warming Crisis Is Over.  [Scroll down] 
Here is what the scientists found:
  •   There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.
  •   Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC forecasts.
  •   Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate.  These were all false alarms.
  •   The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.
Here is what this means for public policy:
  •   Global warming is not a crisis.  The threat was exaggerated.
  •   There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.
  •   It's time to repeal unnecessary and expensive policies.
  •   Future policies should aim at fostering economic growth to adapt to natural climate change.

The Climate Con.  Ever since Michael Mann's fantasy "hockey stick" temperature graph was thoroughly discredited and since Climategate outed institutional scale phony climate data a decade ago, the existence of actual global warming has been rendered null.  The same is true for the impact of CO2 on climate.  No experiment can confirm its impact, models can't predict its influence and collateral data (sea level, animal populations etc.) do not confirm a correlation.  The conclusion must be that man-made climate change and the need to eliminate carbon emissions to avoid climate change simply do not exist.  None of the narrative is based on objective science.  It is a massive hoax and maybe the biggest con job in history.

Environmentalist Killjoys Are Coming for Your Football.  The public's disinclination to see climate change as a pressing global catastrophe is fueling the rage of activists.  Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, who has become an international celebrity for her angry warnings that we're on the brink of "mass extinction," is widely applauded by the media, but there's little indication that Americans are ready to heed her advice.  Indeed, some environmental activists think her emphasis on pushing people to change their personal behavior — to give up meat, cheese, plastic, and air travel — is bound to undermine their cause.  They have little hope that people living in the 21st century will be content to live like they are in the 19th because Thunberg and other activists tells them it will save the planet.  These advocates want the sole focus to be on governments, not individuals.

Mann defamation case against National Review to go forward.  The Supreme Court is allowing a defamation lawsuit brought by a prominent climate scientist against a free-market think tank and a conservative publication to move forward.  On Monday [11/25/2019], the Supreme Court denied a petition by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review magazine to rehear and dismiss the defamation lawsuit brought by well-known climate scientist Michael Mann.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review have been fighting for years to dismiss the case before it goes to trial, but the Supreme Court's denial means the case will move forward in D.C. district court.  The Supreme Court rejected the petition without comment.  But Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, dissented, arguing that the case addresses critical freedom of speech and freedom of the press issues.

SCOTUS Denies Petition to Hear National Review v.  Mann.  The Supreme Court announced Monday morning [11/25/2019] that it will not hear Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review v. Michael E. Mann, a case with dire freedom-of-speech implications for National Review and all American media outlets that publish commentary on contentious public-policy debates.  Mann, a Penn State climatologist famous for the "hockey stick" global-warming graph, was targeted by CEI's Rand Simberg in a 2012 blog post.  Simberg criticized the methods Mann used to collect data for the study, in which Mann attempted to chart the earth's temperature over the past 1,000 years and found a sharp uptick in global temperatures in the 20th century. [...] The stakes are high.  A decision in favor of Mann would set a precedent for political rhetoric moving forward:  Parties could potentially sue public adversaries and rely on juries to settle differences of policy opinion.

Clearing the Air on Climate Change.  A lot of people who clearly don't know what they are talking about have been invoking "the science" in an attempt to portray their eminently assailable positions as unassailable and as proof of a "crisis" that requires the surrender of personal liberties, and tax dollars, that people would not normally be willing to surrender.  Some of these people may be sincere, but it is important to note that many of the biggest promoters of radical action to solve the "climate crisis" are people whose political ideologies also require the vast expansion of government power and reduction of individual freedom for reasons having nothing to do with environmental concerns.

Carbon Dioxide and the Global Warming Hoax.  Man-caused Global Warming/Climate Change being caused by excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is a world-wide HOAX!  Global warming is a major part of the United Nation's Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development) program and plan to redistribute our wealth and control all human activity on the planet!  $360 Billion is being spent each year to promote the fear that global warming will soon destroy the planet and Carbon Dioxide coming from fossil fuels must be greatly restricted; thus, the war on coal, oil and gas.

Nancy Pelosi Says 'The Growing Climate Crisis is the Existential Threat of Our Time'.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) issued a statement on Monday [11/4/2019] condemning President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and declaring that the "growing climate crisis is the existential threat of our time."

The Editor says...
There is no climate crisis.  The weather is not an existential threat.  Nobody care about global warming any more.  Even if you're as old as Nancy Pelosi, the climate is indistinguishable today from the climate in the year you were born.

Global Warming and the pause was driven by changes in cloud cover, not CO2.  Clouds cover two-thirds of the Earths surface, reflecting around 30% of the total energy from the Sun back to space.  A small change in cloud cover can easily warm or cool the planet, like a giant pop-up shade-sail.  This, on its own, explains all the warming that occurred from 1986 [to] 2000.  It explains the pause.  We don't know why clouds decreased, but we know it wasn't due to CO2, which kept rising relentlessly year after year, and even faster after the turn of the century.  Something else is driving cloud formation, or density or longevity, and the global climate modelers don't know what that is.

Scientocracy Busts Open the Motivation behind Global Warming Politics.  The title of this new book is a play on aristocracy.  The science aristocracy is living off its former reputation as honest investigators of the natural world.  But now they are largely mean-spirited bureaucrats who don't hesitate to fake science when it serves their bureaucratic and financial goals.  The public, politicians, and the media are mostly scientific ignoramuses easily fooled into believing that fake science is rock-solid science.  There is an alliance driven by the money-greed of the science mandarins and the socialist dreams of the political Left.  It is not an accident that the many ecological catastrophes predicted by rogue science get political support from the Left.  The book consists of 11 essays by prominent whistleblowers that have waged mostly losing battles with the scientocracy.  The editors are Patrick Michaels, a distinguished skeptical climate scientist, and Terence Kealey, a biochemist and former university administrator in Great Britain.  The science establishment has been corrupted by money, specifically federal research grants.

Climate Stalinism.  The Left's fixation on climate change is cloaked in scientism, deploying computer models to create the illusion of certainty.  Ever more convinced of their role as planetary saviors, radical greens are increasingly intolerant of dissent or any questioning of their policy agenda.  They embrace a sort of "soft Stalinism," driven by a determination to remake society, whether people want it or not — and their draconian views are penetrating the mainstream.

Who Are the "Experts" on Climate Change?  We live in complicated times, immersed in a society of incessant, loud, conflicting voices.  Nowhere is this more true than in the discussion of the impact of carbon dioxide on the planet, oceans, better known as "climate change."  When interested citizens try to get to the bottom of such a highly complex issue, the standard, and proper, rejoinder is:  "Listen to the Experts."  Although that sounds like common sense, such advice is not as simple as it's made out to be.  For millennia, it was safe to assume that mainstream scientists (as a matter of principle) faithfully adhered to high scientific standards.  In our lifetime that has dramatically (and disappointingly) changed.  Today there is an ever-increasing number of scientists driven by political agendas, peer pressure, job security, etc. rather than scientific mores.  This change has extraordinary societal implications — and none of them are beneficial.  No one is policing this abandonment of scientific principles.

Toronto has a Climate Emergency — Tourists Need to Stay Away.  Of course we can write this off as mere virtue signalling and not do anything to immediately attempt to deal with this crisis.  But those who care about the city can and should take immediate steps to combat this emergency.  And there is something that can be done. [...] In order to fight this emergency, we simply have to reduce the number of people in the city.

The IPCC's Seldom Mentioned 'Uncertainties'.  The IPCC is an odd outfit.  Created in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), it is no surprise to learn its Secretariat is located in the latter's Geneva building.  Except for the Secretary Abdalah Mokssit, a Moroccan applied mathematician and meteorologist, most of its 18 staff seem to be "communications and media specialists" or administrators.  The current chair is Hoesung Lee, a South Korean economist.  He was elected in late 2015, after Rajendra Pachauri resigned under a cloud of sexual harassment allegations.  The assessment reports are described as "neutral, policy relevant but not policy prescriptive".  Translation:  we are not telling you what to do, but encourage you to do what we are telling you.  They are "drafted and reviewed in several stages".  This byzantine process with its own jargon — "a calibrated language for the communication of confidence" — apparently ensures "objectivity and transparency".

Here's How the Climate Change Gang Is Saving the Planet, Part II.  We brought you some hilarious vignettes of the climate change activists' efforts to save the planet earlier in the week and now we have some more memorable moments for you.  While we covered the climate strike in London the first time, we're bringing you some other places as well this time around. [...] Really not sure what's going on here, but it surely looks like it will transform the climate:  [Photo]

Is Climate Change Doomsday Coming?  [Scroll down]  Unfortunately, the planet failed to warm up as predicted, so yet another climate theory was created called climate change.  This all-encompassing label meant that incidents of heat waves, cold snaps, rain, drought, hurricanes, and so on could all be identified as problems resulting from man-caused climate change.  In a 2005 Gallup poll asking people to identify America's biggest problem, global warming didn't even make it into the top ten concerns.  Climate change adherents understood that if this lack of concern persisted, they would never achieve their goal of radically reducing fossil fuel use throughout the industrialized world.  So marketing efforts to "sell" climate change to an unconcerned public ramped up, starting with Al Gore's 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which earned Gore an Oscar and Nobel Prize.

Understanding the Climate Movement Part 3: Follow the Money.  I became quite despondent while putting this together as I started to understand the huge, eye-watering amount of money that is dependent upon the unproven notion that atmospheric CO2 arising from the use of fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming/climate change/ pestilence and doom.  Some headline numbers:  the capitalisation of the renewable energy industry is over $1 trillion; the funding of the NGOs being used as alarmist publicity and lobbying agencies exceeds $2 billion; and the amount of government research funding committed to the issue exceeds $1billion.  Good luck expecting that the resolution of some matter of scientific importance will cause these agencies to admit that their business is based upon a lie and that they will go away quietly, or at least scale back to a size more commensurate with the real market needs.

The Cynical Plot Behind Global Warming Hysteria.  Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the UN's top climate officials, effectively admitted that the organization's public position on climate change is a hoax.  The same admission was made earlier this year by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who revealed that the Green New Deal is not about "saving the planet:"  ["]It wasn't originally a climate thing at all ... we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.["]  In other words, the Green New Deal is using climate hysteria as a backdoor way to turn America into a socialist nation.  Figueres, Edenhofer and Chakrabarti aren't the only prominent communists to recognize the value of using environmental hysteria as a fig leaf to hide the true agenda behind "climate change."  In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev advocated climate fear as a means of implementing global communism:  ["]The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.["]  The 'new world order' to which he referred is world governance under the banner of the hammer and sickle.  For that to that to happen, America must give up its national sovereignty.

30 of The Biggest Lies & Hoaxes Perpetrated on The American People.  [#3] Climate Change:  It is a never-ending source of income between tax credits and government grants, and they've had a steady stream of income for quite some time.  Of course, all of the big companies they are invested in pump out the new and improved "green" product lines that have become mandatory as well.  Their biggest push is using climate change for population control, while also terrorizing children to believe the world is going to end very soon.  To date, their so-called climate experts are batting a big 0-41 with their doomsday predictions over the years.  While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tries to push the "Green Deal" and wants to control cow [emissions], Andrew Yang wants to bankrupt cattle farms.  There are so many clowns involved in these games, there are too many to mention.

Socialism, Not Climate Change, Is the Real Threat.  It is preposterous to me that many of my peers are so afraid of climate change that they say they can hardly think about it.  I think what they should really be afraid of is government overreach caused by such exaggeration over the effects of climate change.  Back in the 1960s, some scientists believed that by 1975, the human race would perish through famine caused by climate change.  Funny thing, the human race is now 7.5 billion strong.  Fast-forward 10 years to the 1970s, and scientists were claiming that the world was entering a new ice age, or, in other words, that we were imperiled by global freezing.  Now it is 2019 (about the same time scientists had predicted the world would be frozen over), and many of my peers, as well as plenty of adults, believe that the world is going to end due to global warming, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Canadian youth pledge not to have children until politicians act on climate change.  Emma-Jane Burian is 17 years old and has already decided she is not having kids.  The Victoria teen is participating in Climate Strike Canada's "No Future, No Children" campaign which asks young people to pledge that they will not have children until they are sure that the federal government is taking action on climate change.  The campaign launched Monday, with 190 people having pledged as of noon PT.

The Editor says...
Maybe you should be absolutely sure there is any extraordinary and insufferable climate change (or any change at all) before making drastic alterations to your long-term plans.  Nobody else is slowing down their birth rate, so why should you?

'Climate Change': A Leftist Excuse to Redistribute Wealth and Destroy the West.  The "Church of Climate Change" demands that Western nations impose restrictions on industrial CO2 emissions, encouraging them to squander billions on unreliable "green" technologies and renewable sources of energy.  They continue to ignore the one policy that has significantly increased atmospheric CO2 levels in the last few decades, generating hundreds of millions of metric tons of the stuff annually:  mass third-world immigration (see Kolankiewicz and Camarota, 2008).  If the IPCC were objective, it would demand an end to mass immigration instead of more carbon taxes and emissions trading.  Such indifference in the face of the evidence shows that they care more about racially dispossessing whites than they do about "saving the planet."

Democrats Invite Teen Activists to Testify on 'Climate Crisis'.  Democrat lawmakers have invited 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg to testify before a joint House hearing on Wednesday [9/18/2019] on the "global climate crisis."  Thunberg, who has won plaudits around the world for her "school strike for climate" campaign, is due to appear together with three young Americans before a joint hearing of the new House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee dealing with energy and environmental issues.  Their respective chairmen, Reps.  Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Bill Keating (D-Mass.), have entitled their hearing, "Voices Leading the Next Generation on the Global Climate Crisis."

The First Global Revolution.  While researching for these articles, and during my academic studies, I have come across many references to the The Club of Rome (CoR), and reports produced by them. [...] The CoR claims that "we are facing an imminent catastrophic ecological collapse" and "our only hope is to transform humanity into a global interdependent sustainable society, based on respect and reverence for the Earth."

The Globalism of Climate:  How Faux Environmental Concern Hides Desire to Rule the World.  The primary function of 'global warming' alarmism, aka as the 'climate crisis,' is to facilitate a one-world government, administered by the United Nations bureaucracy.  Regardless of the science involved (or lack of it), there are a number of indisputable facts about the background to anthropogenic global warming alarmism:
  •   The long-standing plan for global government by an elite;
  •   The one-to-one equivalence between the globalists and the creators of climate alarmism, represented above all by David Rockefeller and his protégé Maurice Strong;
  •   The manifest intention of UN reports on 'climate' and the environment to give more power to the UN bureaucracy and to corporate-owned non-government organisations (NGOs).
It was David Rockefeller who, ably assisted by Maurice Strong, created and drove the wildly successful 'Global Warming' strategy.

CNN's Climate Debate Hurts the Democrats It Tried to Help.  It was reminiscent of an old-fashioned revival, this one for a new secular religion.  One by one, the top-tier contenders vowed to spend vast amounts of taxpayer money, kill millions of jobs, and impose sweeping controls on the U.S. economy.  It was a bidding war with somebody else's money.  CNN's amen chorus never bothered to ask three crucial questions.  First, how can America pull off this ambitious agenda without breaking the federal budget and fundamentally changing the way we live?  Second, if these proposals were implemented, how much would they actually reduce global warming?  Most estimates show, unfortunately, that they would have little impact, far less than one degree on the thermometer over several decades.  Third, how can this global problem be solved if China and India continue to fill the air with soot?

How Climate Could Tear the Democratic Party Apart.  Elissa Slotkin has learned that climate change is both a national emergency and a political opportunity.  As an assistant secretary of defense under President Barack Obama, she helped lead the Pentagon's first study of how climate change threatens U.S. military bases.  Then as a Democratic candidate for Congress in 2018, she attacked her Republican opponent for questioning the scientific consensus on climate change — and that's one reason she's now a Democratic member of Congress.  "We talk about the weather all the time in Michigan, and we all know it's getting weird," she says.

The Editor says...
I could assert just as easily that "we all know" the weather is not getting weird.  If you think the weather is getting weird, it's probably because you watch too much television.  The weather changes constantly.  Deal with it.

New Data Shows No U.S. Warming Since 2005.  How likely is it this new information will be taught in schools and universities across American this year or reported by the far-left media? [...] Do you know who is among the top funding sources for the climate change agenda in our universities?  China.  Now, why do you think China would want to see the western world's economies strapped down by the hoax that is climate change?  Could it have anything to do with their intent to become the world's dominant power?

The Coming Climate Change Propaganda Tsunami.  Just as at the end of July, we will likely soon hear that August temperatures either set a record or were close to it.  But an examination of the problems with the July 'record' will help us defuse this claim even before it is made.  For "global temperature" records are generally meaningless, and the one for last month is especially so.  Strictly speaking, it is no more meaningful to calculate the average temperature for the whole planet than it is to calculate the average telephone number in a phone book.  Like viscosity and density, and of course phone numbers, temperature is not something that can be meaningfully averaged.  "Global temperature" does not exist. [...] Even if you could calculate some sort of meaningful global temperature statistic, and indeed, if you did, interpreting its significance would be difficult, the figure would be unimportant.  No one and nothing would experience it directly since we all live in relatively small regions, not the globe.

How the Media Help to Destroy Rational Climate Debate.  Most people do not have the time or educational background to understand the global warming debate, and so defer to the consensus of experts on the subject.  The trouble is that no one ever says exactly what the experts agree upon.  When you dig into the details, what the experts agree upon in their official pronouncements is rather unremarkable.  The Earth has warmed a little since the 1950s, a date chosen because before that humans had not produced enough CO2 to really matter.  Not enough warming for most people to actually feel, but enough for thermometers to pick up the signal buried in the noise of natural weather swings of many tens of degrees and spurious warming from urbanization effects.  The UN consensus is that most of that warming is probably due to increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel use (but we really don't know for sure).  For now, I tend to agree with this consensus.  And still I am widely considered a climate denier.  Why?  Because I am not willing to exaggerate and make claims that cannot be supported by data.

Global Warming:  Fact or Fiction?  Is global warming real?  Have any such predictions been established scientifically?  Would massive "carbon" taxes and other controls put America and the world — especially the poor — at great risk?  At this special event, geoscientist and astrophysicist Willie Soon separates fact from fiction in the global warming debate.  He explains why the forecasts from CO2 climate models have been so wrong — and why solar influences on clouds, oceans, and wind drive climate change, not CO2 emissions.  [Video clip]

The Global Warming Show — how's it going to end?  [W]hen critical thinkers take the effort to go far beyond superficial Google searches and media reports of the issue, they begin spotting all the glitches:  skeptic climate scientists tell in mind-blowing levels of detail how the seas aren't rising nor is the Arctic melting at any noticeable rate; polar bear populations are on the increase; the Miami area suffers from land subsidence; past historical records show as much or more devastating weather events; a show of hands is a logical fallacy which never validates scientific conclusions; and places like the PBS NewsHour never inform their viewers about the science-based analysis from skeptic climate scientists.  Even the term "climate change" is a ruse to cover up the plateauing of the average world temperature over the last 15+ years, while Alexander Ocasio-Cortez's Svengali admits her Green New Deal is nothing more than a plan to gain full control of the private economy.

Fake Science:  No More Questions Edition.  Climate change is an excellent example of post-normal science.  Decision making involves the interaction of the qualitative and quantitative at the science/policy interface.

Laws will not prevent changes in the climate.
Law allows Illinois to take action on climate change.  Gov. J.B. Pritzker has signed a law allowing Illinois to take its own action to slow climate change.  The Democrat approved legislation this week that repeals the Kyoto Protocol Act of 1998.  It limited state action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Great Global Warming Hoax. 
[#1]   The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
[#2]   Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.
[#3]   CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.
[#4]   Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant.  We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.
[#5]   Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.
[#6]   CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.
[#7]   CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets.  The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.

The Democrat Party Is A Joke That Would Cease To Exist Without The Media's Support.  On climate change — which mind you is, always has been and always will be infinitely ubiquitous — they claim they want to "save the planet" but in reality they simply want to control the one commodity that the entire human race most relies on:  Energy.  On literally every issue, the Democrats are social psychopaths whose goals are so far out-of-touch with reality that they have to lie in order to pitch them.  There isn't a single thing the Democrats want and/or fight for that they're honest about.

The leader of the Abortion Party pretends to know what God wants.
Pelosi: 'This Planet Is God's Creation and We Have a Moral Responsibility to be Good Stewards of It'.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave an address to the Ghanaian Parliament on Wednesday where she declared the "climate crisis" the "existential threat of our time" and said we have "a moral responsibility to be good stewards" of a planet that is "God's creation."  "To fully achieve environmental justice, we must combat the climate crisis — which is the existential threat of our time," Pelosi said.  "And it is a moral decision," Pelosi said.  "If you believe, as I do, and I believe the speaker does, that this planet is God's creation, and we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of it, then we have to protect the planet.

The Editor says...
If Mike Pence had uttered the same words, the newspapers would have been screaming about a theocracy the next day.  There is no climate crisis.  There is no extraordinary global warming.  There is no need to curtail the use of hydrocarbons or to avoid the production of carbon dioxide.  If you turn off your television (permanently), you will have no perception that this year's weather is any different from last year's.  Global average temperatures go up and down at the rate of one or two degrees per century.  That is not an "existential threat."

The Seven Dumbest Things Democrats Demand You Believe.  [Scroll down]  Of course, there is also the insistence that driving an SUV or eating meat means you're contributing to burning up the planet.  Every summer we hear the global warming crowd reiterate their breathless claims that "climate change" is the biggest threat to the planet, and the remedy for the coming apocalypse — which is always 10 or 12 years away, even if 10 or 12 years comes and goes with no discernible signs of that apocalypse — is always self-imposed poverty and loss of liberty.

The One Person Who Shows Just How Unhinged Global Warming Alarmism Has Become.  The face of the global warming scare was once that of Al Gore.  Now that face belongs to a 16-year-old girl who's being treated as a prophetess.  It's hard to conceive of a world gone more mad.  Greta Thunberg has been thrust into the spotlight, tagged as the child who will lead us away from our inevitable climate disaster — if only we let her.  Adults hang on her words, regard her as an omniscient oracle, insist that we are in the presence of our savior.  Thunberg's "voice lets us know we're in disavowal, and that we'd better wake up.  Then it tells us, clear as anything, how to do this," says Ali Smith, a Scottish author who writes for The Guardian.  But then if that voice had instead been telling us capitalism has lifted more than a billion out of poverty, Thunberg would have no forum.  Though true, it doesn't fit the narrative.

Prince Charles Predicts The End Of The World.  Charles Philip Arthur George, the prince of Wales and the man who would unfortunately be king, sees doomsday in the near future.  Apparently his foreknowledge is a function of his royal super powers.  He's seeing something no one else is.  Of course there's good reason for that.  "Ladies and gentlemen," said Prince Charles, addressing foreign ministers from around the Commonwealth last week.  "I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival."

The Editor says...
I can assure you that nothing will be done by politicians in the next 18 months (or the next 18 years) that will have any effect on the weather.  My personal opinion is that the day-to-day weather in your neighborhood will be exactly the same 100 years from now.

It's Not Really a Climate Thing:  It's about Control.  Fascism, Communism, Nazism — all gifts to the world from Europe.  Now it's nonsensical worries about climate change resulting in deliberately built-in inefficiencies in everything from household appliances to transportation methods.  Compared to the U.S., Europe's love of control-down economics leaves it in the dust:  "The US GDP is five times that of Germany, seven times that of France and UK, 10 times of that of Italy, and 14 times of that of Spain in 2018."  And when the UK leaves the EU as I predict it will, the gap will be much larger.  Still, the control freaks of the left are determined to copy the European model and hamstring us in ways that make us easier to control.

Climate Crusaders Poised to Claim Oregon.  The best that may be said of the drama playing out in Oregon this week is that it exemplifies the vast and growing distance between Left and Right in America today.  To see it in its worst (and, perhaps, clearest) light, however, it exemplifies the relentless onslaught of corporate leftist tyranny, in all things, and everywhere at once.  It also illustrates the rising fury of an abused population slowly awakening.  In Oregon's case, a handful of Republican state senators are fighting an uphill battle to protect the people they represent from yet another attack by the climate crusaders.

Dirty Rotten Climate Scandals:  Reality of big climate funding will shock you.  Other scientists try to help humanity, but while climate scientists may kid themselves and others that they share that goal, their practical intent is to raise energy costs and harm nations' energy efficiency via renewables.  While they posture as planet-savers in white coats, some of them pocket awards of half-million dollars, even a million, and notch up more career-enhancing medals than a North Korean general.

Economists Have Been "Useful Idiots" for the Green Socialists.  In the old Soviet Union, the Communists allegedly used[1] the term "useful idiot" to describe Westerners whose naïve political views furthered the Soviet agenda, even though these Westerners didn't realize that they were being exploited in such fashion.  It is in this context that I confidently declare that American economists have been useful idiots for the green socialists pushing extreme climate change policies.  The radical environmentalists were quite happy to embrace the economic concepts of "Pigovian negative externalities" and a carbon tax in the past, but now that it is impossible for economic science to endorse their desired agenda, the activists have discarded the entire field as hopelessly out of touch.  Economists who still support a carbon tax and other climate "mitigation policies" should be aware of the bigger picture.

Energy and Geopolitics Are under Attack.  Global warming.  Climate change.  Renewable energy.  Carbon-free societies.  All of these terms have gained status as the balm to eliminate fossil fuels, which is supposedly causing anthropogenic global warming. [...] Nothing energizes environmentalists and citizens like renewable energy.  But in every single place renewables have been implemented, they are a disaster.  In Germany, Denmark, Spain, Britain, South Australia, Vermont, Minnesota, New Mexico (in the beginning stages of maligning fossil fuels), Arkansas, California, and Texas, solar and wind farms have been valiantly attempted, and they have failed every single time.

Warmist doomsday cult trying yet another re-branding.  Telemundo, the second-largest Spanish language U.S. television network, will now use "climate emergency" to describe global warming, citing the "scientific community and linguistics experts."  This comes one month after The Guardian, a prominent U.K. newspaper, discarded climate change in favor of more alarming terms, like "climate emergency, crisis or breakdown."  It's still the same hoax, and the propagandists hyping it fall back on the usual trick of confusing actual science with allegations of a phony consensus.

The Democrats refuse to talk about Global Warming, even though they say it will be too late to fix it in another 12 years.
Jay Inslee threatened with expulsion from DNC debates over climate change.  Washington governor Jay Inslee claims the Democratic National Committee has threatened to ban him from future primary debates if he participates in a discussion on climate change he has urged the organisation to host.  Mr Inslee, in a series of tweets, said that the DNC had contacted his campaign to tell them that it would not host a debate focused on climate change.  And, he wrote that his campaign had been informed he "will not be invited to future debates" if "we participated in anyone else's climate debate".

Why Democrats went silent on climate change.  [Scroll down]  Wow, this is bigger than a world war or landing the man on the moon.  But Democrats won't talk about it. [...] There is a reason for this.  Americans are not falling for the Fake Science.  The Pew Research Center found the public is not falling for this sky-is-falling nonsense.  50 years of lying about over-population, global cooling, and global warming have turned the public off.  Democrats don't want to remind the electorate of their role in promoting this Junk Science.

Climate science violates the basic precepts of science.  [Scroll down]  Climate science is more like "diet science", in which every second doctor has his own ideas about a good diet.  It is a very immature science at best, and most of its current conclusions will be totally rejected with time.  What is global temperature anyway?  How is it measured?  Why are we looking at the last fifty years and not the last fifty million years?  Even simple things like the measurements of temperature are subject to huge disagreements because of complexities like the urban heat island effect.  And the fact is that the world has seen much higher levels of CO2 in the past even during ice ages.  Until climate science can make accurate predictions of past ice ages and temperatures, will not be ready to be called a science.

Climate Change is a Political Loser.  The global technocrats, for whom Climate Change has been one of those "crises" that progressives "never let go to waste," no doubt are wishing they could "dissolve the people" rather than change the government through democratic elections.  Persuading free citizens with arguments based on fact, or with appeals to their interests, is difficult when your "crisis" is nothing more than a politicized hypothesis based on appeals to authority, rigged computer simulations, and apocalyptic predictions laced with insults to the skeptics' intelligence and morals.  The politicians should have seen the signs of global warming's declining utility as an electoral scare-tactic.  In the U.S., "climate change" for years has ranked low on the list of issues voters are concerned about.

Around the world, [there is] backlash against expensive climate-change policies.  Skepticism over whether humans are causing dangerous climate change has always been higher in America than in most industrialized countries.  As a result, governments in Europe, Canada, and other developed areas are much farther along the energy rationing path, cutting carbon dioxide emissions as required.  However, residents in these countries have begun to revolt against the higher energy costs they suffer under due to high taxes on fossil fuels and mandates to use expensive renewable energy.  This is what originally prompted protesters in France to don yellow vests and take to the streets in 2018.

Conservatives Must Stand Up to Climate Change Bullying.  Canada and the United States have many things in common — we love our hockey players, our astronauts and our veterans.  We value freedom and prosperity and, when push comes to shove, will fight tooth and nail against those who would take either from us.  We also have our shares of misguided conservative politicians who think they can win over left-leaning voters by promoting the climate scare.  In Canada we had Stephen Harper who was elected prime minister as a conservative and a committed climate sceptic but changed sides after being elected in an apparent attempt to curry favor with the left.  It did him no good whatsoever and he was crucified by mainstream media, which swept the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau into power.  Today's federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer is no better, promoting the climate scare and promising to present his party's climate change plan by the beginning of summer with a focus on so-called clean energy.

Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age.  [Scroll down]  There is NO credible scientific evidence that climate is highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, and ample evidence to the contrary.  Catastrophic human-made global warming is a false crisis.  Competent scientists have known this fact for decades.  In a written debate in 2002 sponsored by APEGA and co-authored on our side by Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and me, we concluded:  "Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming — the alleged warming crisis does not exist."  "The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply — the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels."  Many scientific observations demonstrate that both these statements are correct-to-date.  The current usage of the term "climate change" is vague and the definition is routinely changed in the literature, such that it has become a non-falsifiable hypothesis.  It is therefore non-scientific nonsense.

Climate Change Is Socialist Groupthink.  The world suffered through 120 years of experimentation with socialism launched by the welfare state of Germany in 1870 through the Russian Revolution and creation of the Soviet Union, the annexation of Eastern Europe, and the victory of Mao in China.  China abandoned pure socialism after Mao's death.  Then the Berlin Wall fell; Poland rebelled and the USSR disintegrated, all because socialism had impoverished those nations to the point that they couldn't feed their own people.  Socialism lost the economic debate that had burned through the 20th century.  Reasonable people divorced socialism, but most socialists had never been reasonable.  They are aflame with envy.

Fake Climate Science and Scientists.  Real science — and real scientists — seek to understand natural phenomena and processes.  They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data.  If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature — at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations.  Real science does not involve simply declaring that you "believe" something, It's not immutable doctrine.  It doesn't claim "science is real" — or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone.

If you care about the opinion of an 82-year-old actor:
Robert Redford:  Earth at 'Irreversible Tipping Point' on Climate Change.  Climate change alarmist Robert Redford had an interesting way to commemorate Earth Day on Monday, when the liberal actor warned that people should avoid focusing on political issues because he couldn't see why any of those would matter "without a planet to live on."  For a change among such extremists, Redford didn't set a deadline for when life on our planet would end.  Instead, he stated that the world is "approaching an irreversible tipping point" because of the "damage mankind has caused all around us every day and everywhere."

The Editor says...
What damage?

Living in Leftlandia.  Leftlandians actually believe that the world's climate is something they can control, that man is so much greater than the God Who created the world that humans can use so much toilet paper, or so much gasoline that they can undo creation.  They also believe that using fossil fuels to generate electricity with which to run our cars is somehow more environmentally sensible than just using the fossil fuels directly. [...] In their unicorn-inhabited world they can pass laws forbidding plastic straws and shampoo bottles and assume that this terrible sacrifice will clean the oceans of the trash dumped into it by billions of people in the third world.  They actually believe they can impose tax hikes on the wealthy and on corporations and said entities will just sit and take it.

Global Warming — Then Versus Now.  The perils of climate change were first introduced to the world in 1968.  It was then that the renown Stanford Research Institute (SRI) published its report, called Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Polluters, warning everyone that a steady increase in levels of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere were unnaturally warming the Earth.  Yet, nine years passed before the now-oft-used term "global warming" appeared in any academic literature and another 20 years went by before Congress heard from the experts that worldwide temperatures were increasing, polar ice caps were melting and sea levels had risen about half a foot since sometime in the 1800's.

Questioning Global Warming.  When pollsters realized the public and elected officials weren't buying global warming as a concept or policy, in a brilliant political move, they came up with the phrase "climate change."  This helped sell the theory of man-made global warming.  Weather is politicized and computer models are only predictions that have been used as pawns in elections and justifying increased government budgets.  The global warming/climate change (GWCC) narrative has made Al Gore a rich man peddling unrealized fear. [...] CO2 is a factor that influences regional and global temperatures, and there are considerable questions about the role it plays in recent warming trends in the 20th and 21st century.

The Global Warming Apocalypse Has Been Postponed.  In recent years, the controversial subject of global warming and a potential "climate disaster" has received a lot of media attention.  There are progressive politicians who are now arguing that unless profound changes in public policy are made to reduce worldwide carbon emissions, we face an impending world-wide climate related catastrophe. [...] While I will not contest that we all need to care about the environment and avoid polluting the earth, I find it interesting that those who say that there is an impending climate disaster, keep pushing the date further into the future when such a worldwide cataclysm is supposed to take place.

Climate Junk Science and the Utter Nonsense of Twelve Years to Destruction.  Yes, of course climate changes.  There are cycles when the globe gets warmer and others when earth cools.  Yet notice that even the Left increasingly has backtracked from the term "Global Warming."  Now it is "Climate Change."  Too many polar vortexes.

The World's Thermostat Is in the Creator's Hand — Always Has Been, and Always Will Be.  America has made great strides in cleaning up the industrial and chemical waste, the volatile tailings of nuclear power and the protection of our natural treasures.  But now it seems that the lion's share of the energy of the modern eco movement is directed at what was once called global warming, and has morphed into climate change.  It will probably be renamed many more times to fit whatever weather and natural disasters would best be suited by it, as it has vacillated between hot climate and ice age for the last century.  First, on a practical side, the philosophy of the movement is tantamount to looking for something in the house that you know you misplaced in the barn.  No "global warming come climate change" effort would ever amount to a hill of beans if it only involves America, especially when the real offenders are on the other side of the world.

Greenpeace co-founder:  Most scientists who say there's a 'climate crisis' are on 'government grants'.  A co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace slammed climate alarmists on Tuesday [3/12/2019], claiming that most scientists who insist that the Earth is in human-caused climate "crisis" subsist on taxpayer funding and as such must take that position if they want their funding to continue.  Patrick Moore slammed climate alarmists for promoting a phony emergency during an interview Tuesday on "Fox & Friends.["]  "In fact, the whole climate crisis as they call it is not only fake news, it's fake science.

Debunking Decades of Climate Alarmism.  As The Daily Signal's Jarrett Stepman reminds us, "Panics over looming environmental and climate apocalypse have been with us for a long time."  The rise of environmental and climate alarmism began in earnest during the 1960s and '70s, but the path began long before that.  As Stepman explains, "Thomas Malthus famously predicted in his 1798 book 'An Essay on the Principle of Population' that population growth would overtake food supply and mass starvation would result unless population controls were implemented."  Subsequent centuries have featured similar trepidation.  There are five notable examples, says Stepman, beginning with the inaugural 1970 Earth Day.  At the time, North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter ominously predicted, "By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."  Conversely, undernourishment has plummeted worldwide.

The Five Top Arguments Against Climate Alarmism.  [#1] Climate alarmism is based mainly around fear of extreme weather.  This concept is deeply rooted in human nature, and has its roots in ancient stories of giant floods, famines and plagues — caused (of course) by man's sins.  Climate alarmists are tapping into that primal fear, and pushing the same idea of extreme weather and floods caused by mankind's carbon sins.  The reality is that there is no legitimate evidence extreme weather is increasing or sea level rise is accelerating.  The fears are baseless.  [#2] Only a small handful of people whom the press and politicians quote over and over again are allowed to state an opinion, and they are claimed to represent 97% of the world's millions of scientists. [... #4] Climate alarmism is completely dependent on graphs and useless climate models generated by a small handful of people.  The graphs are generated through scientifically corrupt processes of data tampering and hiding data.

Why Do Progressives Reject Policies That Would Achieve Their Aims?  The solution championed by the warmists comprises various schemes to drastically reduce or eliminate energy derived from carbon.  But everyone admits that the reductions, even if achieved, would not be enough to stop the alleged catastrophic warming, but would certainly devastate the economy.  Meanwhile, the real solutions for progressives to get what they want lies with the free market that increases global wealth.  The scandal of alarmist climate change, of course, is that the policy prescriptions are useless for slowing warming.

Scientist who raised early alarms about climate change and popularized term 'global warming' dies at 87.  A scientist who raised early alarms about climate change and popularized the term "global warming" has died.  Wallace Smith Broecker was 87.

The Green New Fascist Deal.  [Hermann] Flohn's very German odyssey actually began in 1941, when he published an article on global warming titled, "The Activity of Man as a Climate Factor" during the dizzying heights of Nazi rule.  The Dust Bowl years of the 1930s on the American plains was an exceptionally warm period that prompted environmental discussion among many Nazis at the time, who deemed such an ecological disaster as a symptom of diseased industrial capitalism which had ruined the soil.  While Flohn was not a Nazi Party member, he received his doctorate in 1934 and began work for the German Meteorological Service at a time when National Socialism was attempting to bring into line German universities within its ideological purview.  Later, Flohn became the Luftwaffe's chief meteorologist under green Nazi Hermann Goering's watch.  The great irony is that the global warming of the 1930s came to an abrupt halt (which lasted until 1975) just in time for the 1941 invasion of Russia when the Wehrmacht essentially froze to death just outside the gates of Moscow.

Is the Global Warming Theory Scientific?  A fundamental principle of science is that a theory, to have any significance, must be falsifiable.  Science proceeds by proposing a hypothesis, and figuring out what the hypothesis implies.  Scientists then make real-world observations to determine whether the theory's implications do, in fact, obtain.  They look for implications that are specific to the theory, so that, for example, it doesn't work to say:  If this theory is valid, the sky will be blue.  Voila!  Any theory can be consistent with countless facts, but if it implies a prediction that is falsified by observation, the theory is wrong.  Period.  Also:  a model is not evidence.  A model is a theory.  Whether the model is correct or not depends on its consistency with observation.  This is so elementary that it shouldn't need to be explained.  But apparently, America's public schools are not teaching the scientific method.

Mass Immigration and Climate Change Doublethink.  Perhaps nowhere else is doublethink more readily apparent than in the absurdly conflicted intersection of leftist environmentalism — think of it as ecological conservation with a pagan streak — and support for mass immigration.  Climate change true believers have perfect faith in the notion that the human contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is the primary driver of global warming, and that only by drastically reducing that contribution can we avoid apocalyptic climate tragedy on a global scale.

House Democrats Held The First Climate Change Hearings In Six Years.  It Was A Mess.  Top House Democrats finally got their wish to hold the first hearings on global warming in six years Wednesday [2/6/2019], but both committee hearings meandered into discussions of civil rights, race and apocalyptic warnings without much talk about science. [...] "Climate change is a civil rights issue," Reverend Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, told lawmakers on the committee on Wednesday morning [2/6/2019].  Lennox also referred to tackling global warming as the "lunch counter moment for the 21st century."  Yearwood also warned the U.S. does "not make it beyond 12 years from now without huge amounts of death, destruction, and suffering" unless Congress addressed global warming, according to his prepared remarks.

What science could teach Ocasio-Cortez about climate change.  The truth is comparatively boring:  According to the United Nations climate-science panel's latest major report, if we do absolutely nothing to stop climate change, the impact will be the equivalent to a reduction in our incomes of between 0.2 percent and 2 percent five decades from now.  Yet by the 2070s, personal incomes will be some 300 percent to 500 percent higher than they are today.  Far from the "end of the world," the impact of warming is what we'd expect from roughly a single economic recession taking place over the next half century.  Many of us question how this could be true, when we are constantly told that extreme weather is wreaking ever-greater devastation.  In fact, research shows that extreme weather is having a rather minimal economic effect.  Since 1990, the cost associated with extreme weather worldwide has actually declined, to 0.25 percent of global gross domestic product, from 0.30 percent.

Fact-Free Politics.  Among the most popular current catchwords are "climate change deniers."  Stop and think.  Have you ever — even once in your entire life — seen, heard or read even one human being who denied that climates change?  It is hard even to imagine how any minimally knowledgeable person could deny that climates change, when there are fossils of marine creatures in the Sahara Desert.  Obviously there has been quite a climate change there.  The next time someone talks about "climate change deniers," ask them to name one — and tell you just where specifically you can find their words, declaring that climates do not change.  You can bet the rent money that they cannot tell you.

Why Climate Change Isn't Science.  Environmentalists first predicted impending climate disaster in the 1970s, but they didn't call it global warming.  Back then, it was "Global Cooling" that would end life on earth as we knew it.  The smog of industrial pollutants was blocking out sunlight so severely, we were warned, that our planet would enter a new ice age unless we acted quickly.  Magazine covers featured pictures of snowball earth.  In the eighties, we cleaned up our air, the threatened the ice age did not occur, and thousands of people with time on their hands and seeking purpose in life had discovered that they could make a career out of disaster prophecy.  Thus, it was time for a new catastrophe:  "Global Warming."  Well, maybe not so new.  Same villain:  us and our machines.  Same victim:  our delicate planet earth.  Same threat:  the end of life as we know it.  Only the predicted temperature had changed.

Follow the (Climate Change) Money.  Shortly after the latest "Chicken Little" climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so.[...] No one hires a fireman if there are no fires.  No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather.  Why doesn't anyone in the media ever mention this?  But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from anything I've said on TV or written.

Climate Change:  The Poetry of Dreams and the Prose of Reality.  As the argument goes, if the United States would replace internal combustion engines with batteries and shut down oil refineries and coal-fired power plants, we would save the planet.  There is a reason they keep emphasizing the United States.  Other countries, especially the major polluters such as Russia, China, and Eastern Europe, have no intention of following this destructive path.  Every single week of the year, China brings into service a new, large coal-fired plant that has practically no environmental controls and subsequently contributes to 30 percent of the air pollution in Los Angeles.  By taking this position, the supporters of global warming have demonstrated that they selectively collect, analyze, and utilize scientific data to support their ideological position.  Otherwise, they might have found that the theory of global warming is full of holes.

Finally!  We Can Thank The French For Something!  Anthropogenic Climate Change is not about the Environment.  It's about control and a massive transfer of money from America to the rest of the world.

Ontario Scraps the Green Energy Act.  Ontario's Government for the People is delivering on its promise to repeal the Green Energy Act, 2009, that led to the disastrous feed-in-tariff program and skyrocketing electricity rates for Ontario families.  "The Green Energy Repeal Act eliminates a piece of legislation that introduced disastrous changes to Ontario's energy system that led to rising electricity rates for families and businesses," said Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, Greg Rickford. "

Global Warming Bandwagon Coming Apart, Says Marc Morano.  In this exclusive interview with The New American magazine from the United Nations COP24 summit, prominent climate skeptic Marc Morano said that the global-warming alarmism was facing major pushback worldwide.  [Video clip]

Green New Deal Is Bad Deal for All Americans.  Besides the dubiousness of the left's premise that climate change is man-made and endangers the future of the planet, it is highly likely that the Green New Deal will cause an economic apocalypse while failing to solve a nonexistent climate crisis.  In short, the Green New Deal would destroy the lifeblood of the U.S. economy: fossil fuel energy.  Not only would the Green New Deal lead to an economic crash of unforeseen proportions, but it is equally laughable to believe that the rest of the world would get on board.  The Green New Deal would inflict an economic deathblow to the U.S. economy, while making little to no impact on worldwide carbon [dioxide] emissions.  Even if you ardently believe in global warming gloom and doom, why in the world would you support a law that would have little effect on the climate and inflict widespread poverty?

Panic time: a tiny 0.01% of Antarctica, resting on volcanoes, melts five times faster than nothing.  Let this go down as a prime example of Big Meaningless Numbers used to scare you.

Poland trolls the global environmentalists at UN climate meeting.  A two week gathering of diplomats and climate 'experts' on man-made global warming started in Katowice, Poland this week.  The purpose of the meetings is to strengthen the Paris Climate Accord to stem purported climate damage, which the environmentalists claim, is caused by burning fossil fuel.  Note that the greatest bugaboo to the enviros is not oil; it's coal.  To them, coal is so evil that President Barack Hussein Obama promised to shut down the entire U.S. coal industry through the heavy hand of government regulations.

This actually explains a lot:  Biggest delegations to UN Climate Conference come from poor African nations.  The Africans are not there just to eat fancy food and stay in nice hotels.  There is money on the table, the poor nations understand.

Obama official helped prepare dire National Climate Assessment.  A former Obama administration official with ties to a liberal advocacy group funded by Democratic megadonors George Soros and Tom Steyer helped prepare the Fourth National Climate Assessment, whose dire predictions have since been attacked as overblown.  Andrew Light, who worked on the 2015 Paris accord negotiations as a senior adviser to the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change under Secretary of State John F. Kerry, served as a review editor for the assessment, overseeing the pivotal final chapter that concluded under a worst-case scenario that global warming could wipe out as much as 10 percent of the U.S. economy by 2100.

The Editor says...
Even if it's true that global warming could wipe out as much as 10 percent of the U.S. economy, abnormal (man-made, extraordinary, self-perpetuating) global warming may never happen, and the environmentalists' proposed solutions would probably wipe out 90 percent of the U.S. economy by 2100.  I'll gladly take my chances on the ten percent route -- because, again, there may not be a problem at all.

Experts on Climate Change Assessment: 'Every Conclusion of This Latest Government Report Is False'.  The federal government's Fourth National Climate Assessment, released on Friday [11/23/2018], has gained praise from leftists and left-wing environmental groups as a dire warning of the coming death and destruction in the United States if we don't stop global warming.  But critics of the report, including scientists, have slammed it as "exaggeration," bad science and even said its conclusions are "false."

Experts: Climate Change Assessment Comes to 100% False Conclusions.  We don't even know the cause of the California fires yet but the left is screaming 'climate change'!  The leftists want our money and they want to destroy capitalism.  Those factors motivate the hardcore left to promote a hysterical version of climate change.  They roped in environmentalists with extreme views.  Socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are just ignorant and go along with the pack.  People like Al Gore, believer or not, has made hundreds of millions off the scheme.  The media spreads the stories far and wide for them.  We don't know for sure if global warming is man-made.  We do know carbon dioxide is good for the earth.  Democrats refuse to look at the facts.

Did You Hear?  Now Man Is Causing Climate Change On The Moon.  This probably sounds like a joke (and it really should be), but it's apparently a serious discussion taking place this year.  There's climate change on the moon and, obviously, man must have caused it.  So will there be wildfires raging out of control?  Tsunamis?  Hurricanes?  No, but the surface temperature is slightly warmer than it was before we arrived fifty years ago.

The Editor says...
The moon is covered with sterile dirt.  There is no life there.  What's the problem if it's a little hotter?

Scientists Destroy Steyer-Linked, Federal Climate Hysteria Report Issued by Obama Holdovers.  The so-called "Deep State" doesn't simply exist in the Department of Justice or Obama holdovers in the FBI. The infestation of leftist bureaucracts, synonymous with the Democrat Party, occurs in every department of the federal leviathan.  No better proof exists than the climate report released by "14 federal agencies", in which temperatures are predicted to rise more than 15° because, yes, Americans are screwing things up for the rest of the world. [...] The author of this piece of propaganda, one Elizabeth Gore, is Environmental Defense Fund's senior vice president of political affairs.  There are no mentions, of course, of the failed predictions of years past.  Remember, the ice-caps would be gone by 2010, sea levels would rise by 15 feet by 2017, etc.  The problems with this report by Obama holdovers in the Deep State are many.

Global Warming:  Fake Science Again Serves Far-Left Political Agenda.  The fact is, access to fossil fuels has been the key driver of global economic success since the industrial age began.  Cheap, plentiful fossil fuels during the last 175 years led to the greatest economic surge in human history.  Carbon-based fuels moved literally billions of people around the world out of lives of grinding poverty and hard physical labor and into unparalleled wealth and comfort.  Equally bad, the report suggests, is that due to the greenhouse gas effect, U.S. temperatures will be 3 to 12 degrees hotter, leading to more wildfires and hurricanes, among other climate-related disasters.  Such extreme numbers have never been found before in a major peer-reviewed study.  Nor do they factor in the effects of the fracking revolution, which the reports authors pretend hasn't happened.  Yet, by getting utilities and others to switch to natural gas and away from dirtier fossil fuels, the natural gas boom has led to a record decline in U.S. CO2 emissions.

Latest Global Warming Lies from US Global Change Research Program.  The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) has released its latest doomsday climate report. [...] Federal advisory committees are supposed to be committees of experts with a diversity of viewpoints.  The committee in 2011 consisted of supposed experts with only one point of view, that we are threatened by doomsday global warming.  The USGCRP suffers from a lack of imagination.  Its reports imitate the style and approach of the United Nations International Panel On Climate Change (IPCC). The USGCRP uses the IPCC as a trusted source.  The problem is that the IPCC is not to be trusted.  One idea broached at the 2011 meeting is present in the 2018 report.  In 2011 the activists wrestled with the problem that nobody was paying much attention to their reports.  They decided that there should be customized reports for different parts of the U.S. The idea was that people would be more concerned if there were specific doomsday predictions for their neighborhood.  The country was divided into regions as shown in the map below.  Doomsday forecasts for the regions are taken from climate models, sometimes supplemented by a procedure known as downscaling.

The Latest Manipulative National Climate Assessment Report.  The development of this report was well underway during the Obama administration.  Nevertheless, the Trump White House did not change the report's content.  When President Trump was asked on Monday [11/26/2018] whether he had read the report, he replied, "I've seen it, I've read some of it, and it's fine."  He remains skeptical, however, regarding the report's dire predictions of the extent to which climate change will have a supposedly devastating impact on the U.S. economy by the end of this century.  "I don't believe it," he said, also noting that China and other countries were largely responsible for the problem, not the United States.  The president has every reason to be skeptical of the report's doomsday forecasts for the U.S. economy.

Climate change pain hits too hard, nearly 300,000 start revolt in France.  Changing the global climate is such a ridiculously ambitious task that there was never an scientific limit to the imposts that would be demanded.  So the zealots would take what they could get, and then ask for more in escalating cycles, until the people finally rose up in revolt.  Changing the climate is all apple pie until it really hits our quality of life.

How Trump Stood Up to the Environmentalist Left.  Everyone is in favor of improved quality of air and water, but out of environmental and conservationist enthusiasm and even zeal, there abruptly arose the movement to reduce carbon use because of the miraculously conjured and promoted but unsubstantiated theory that the world was quickly warming and that carbon use was the reason.  Failure to change radically how we lived and how our economies in the West functioned would lead to a catastrophe of rising water levels and skyrocketing temperatures.

The Left Favors Global Warming.  Diehard environmentalists — the fervent, radical Green faction — want global warming to continue.  Whether man-caused warming is real or just a fabrication of anti-capitalist leftists is unimportant.  The hardcore environmental lobby wants and needs the issue of warming to justify their existence and fundraising activities the same way and for the same reasons that the Democratic Party creates racial, gender, ethnic and income-based victimhood.  Create a victim group, convince them that their plight is completely the fault of the opposing party, then promise them a government program that will alleviate their suffering forever if they vote for the Democrats.  The issue of warming being the fault of Republicans is a tough case to make, however.  First, there's the issue of whether there is really any man-caused warming at all.

Moving the Goalposts, IPCC Secretly Redefines 'Climate'.  The definition of 'climate' adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years.  It was introduced at the 1934 Wiesbaden conference of the International Meteorological Organisation (WMO's precursor) because data sets were only held to be reliable after 1900, so 1901 [to] 1930 was used as an initial basis for assessing climate.  It has a certain arbitrariness, it could have been 25 years.  For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called "the climate we are in."  It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate — but now it is the 30 years [centered] on the present.

Green Energy is the Perfect Scam.  The beneficiaries of the green energy scam go way beyond the wind and solar industries.  Non-profit environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, need to be seen as fighting against an urgent looming catastrophe.  If they don't have something dreadful to fight against, no one is going to join their organizations or give them money.  Global warming, allegedly caused by carbon dioxide, is the looming catastrophe and green energy is the solution.  When the globe failed to warm they renamed the looming catastrophe climate change in place of global warming.  Now they blame every instance of bad weather on climate change created by burning coal and oil.  What were formerly acts of God are now the fault of the oil and coal companies.

Global Warming Propaganda in the Election Season.  The Washington Post is right on schedule, turning weather into politics, [...] All because of environment-hating Donald Trump, we have storms, hurricanes, snow, rain, heat, and any other form of weather.  If only Trump didn't pull the plug on the Paris agreements, the fierce hurricanes of the last two years would not have happened.  Instead Houston, Florida, and the Carolinas would have had nothing but tropical breezes.

Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday:  Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?  The history of weather forecasting is not a secret.  Weather, a word that is used to denote short-term local changes of atmospheric conditions, has always been difficult to predict.  One of the reasons for this is the high degree of variability in the physical elements like wind, pressure, and moisture — some of the many factors that control rainfall and other physical phenomena in a local region.  While we have made considerable progress using satellites to improve on our weather forecasts, the weather reporters in the news media still fall short of accurate predictions.

Follow the Money on Climate Caterwauling.  Government funding favors research promoting the theme that man-made global warming is real, preventable, and apocalyptic.  This is "federal funding induced bias," as described by the Cato Institute.  If a scientist publishes research findings contrary to the left-wing climate dogma, their funding dries up.  A young climate scientist, eager to climb the academic ladder, earn tenure, and have a successful career, quickly learns how to promote an agenda rather than perform objective scientific research.  There are also carbon credits, for sale to assuage liberal guilt, while making millions for those selling the credits, as former Vice President Al Gore has done with great success.

25 Reasons I'm Not a Democrat.  [#10] "Climate change" is something that happens naturally and we need decades more of research and scientific advancement before we know how much of a role man is playing and what, if anything, we should do about it.

Chuck Schumer Spews Climate Change Lies On The Senate Floor.  After spending the last month making up stories about Republican support of Judge Justice Kavanaugh, last week's confirmation of Kavanaugh left Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) looking for something new to lie about.  Hurricane Michael gave him the opportunity.  Exploiting a far left falsehood, Schumer gave his morning Senate leader speech to an empty chamber blaming hurricanes on climate change.

Delingpole: Hurricane Michael Was Not the Third-Strongest Anything.  What do you do when you need an extreme weather event — any extreme weather event — to prove that Donald Trump has got it wrong on climate change?  Simple.  You do what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) did today [10/11/2018] and turn a fairly ordinary hurricane into a record-breaker.  Yes, according to NOAA's figures the hurricane was indeed — as Breitbart reported — the strongest to make landfall in the continental U.S. ranked by pressure.

Don't buy the UN's bull — The US isn't killing planet Earth.  The United Nations and nearly 100 climate scientists from across the globe have issued their latest environmental primal scream.  Thanks to climate change, the planet is evidently on a path of "unprecedented environmental destruction" that will destroy life on earth as we know it.  Within a generation we'll be overwhelmed by catastrophic wildfires, rising sea levels, floods, hurricanes, disease, food shortages and a mass die-off of coral reefs."  There hasn't been this much doom and gloom packed in a government report since Jimmy Carter was in the White House and issued the "Global 2000 Report" which predicted a coming Malthusian scarcity.

Climate Change's Ever-Shifting Goalposts.  A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change offers a timely reminder that much of the Left's doomsday hysteria can be traced to the modern-day environmental movement.  Like Democrats' dire warnings that everything from tax cuts to net neutrality will result in mass casualties, the climate cabal's Grim Reaper estimates are not just wrong and constantly changing — they defy reality.  Ever since Donald Trump wisely scuttled the meaningless Paris Climate Accord last year, climate alarmists have been desperate to revive the public's interest in this once-dominant political issue.  As concern about climate change has waned, the activists who are determined to use it as leverage to exert more state control over our lives have downgraded the planet's prognosis once again.

Stopping 'Catastrophic' Global Warming Is Impossible, UN Report Shows, So What's The Point?  Assume for the sake of argument that everything environmentalists say about global warming is true.  If that's the case, then there is no chance of stopping it.  That's what's the latest UN report on global warming clearly demonstrates. [...] Past predictions of global warming catastrophes have failed to emerge.  In the U.S., for example, there's been no trend toward more extreme weather, drought or flooding, even though the planet has already warmed 1 degree Celsius.  This year's tornado season, in fact, has been the mildest on record.  What's more, environmentalists have issued these "point of no return" warnings for decades, only to revise them once the supposed deadline passes.

The Mask Slips.  Meteorologist Eric Holthaus wrote on Twitter this morning [10/9/2018] that "The world's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet."  He said that as en endorsement of the latest UN climate report, which Grist claims "shows civilization is at stake" if we don't... bring Western Civilization to an end.  Funny how the Left's goals always seem to come to that, isn't it?

The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say.  The world stands on the brink of failure when it comes to holding global warming to moderate levels, and nations will need to take "unprecedented" actions to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade, according to a landmark report by the top scientific body studying climate change.  With global emissions showing few signs of slowing and the United States — the world's second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide — rolling back a suite of Obama-era climate measures, the prospects for meeting the most ambitious goals of the 2015 Paris agreement look increasingly slim.  To avoid racing past warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels would require a "rapid and far-reaching" transformation of human civilization at a magnitude that has never happened before, the group found.

The Editor says...
What was so great about "preindustrial" temperatures, or "preindustrial" life?

Terrifying climate change warning: 12 years until we're doomed.  Earth is on track to face devastating consequences of climate change — extreme drought, food shortages and deadly flooding — unless there's an "unprecedented" effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, a new United Nations report warns.  The planet's surface has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) and could see a catastrophic 1.5 C (2.7 F) increase between 2030 and 2052, scientists say.  "This is concerning because we know there are so many more problems if we exceed 1.5 degrees C global warming, including more heat waves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and, for many parts of the world, worse droughts and rainfall extremes," Andrew King, a climate science academic at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement to CNN.

The Editor says...
Here's your first clue:  It's CNN.  Doomsday predictions of this sort, in which irreversible disaster is just 10 or 12 years away, have popped up before, and the deadlines have come and gone, and the false prophets are still around, and the news media still falls for it every time.  Also notice that the professor says, "we know there are so many more problems" ahead, but do we really know this?  More problems?  Were ANY problems caused by 20th century global warming?

Climate Alarmism Fails the Test of Observation.  The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is falsified by observation, and therefore is wrong. [...] As you probably know, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 arguably may produce a one degree C warming, which pretty much everyone agrees would be a good thing, especially as the additional CO2 would help to green the planet.  In order to get the "catastrophic" into CAGW, you have to assume something else: that this one degree warming would produce significantly more water vapor in the environment.  It is this hypothetical (but unobserved) water vapor that accounts for the overwhelming majority of the warming claimed by the alarmists' models.  This theory isn't very plausible, since the Earth has often, in the past, been a degree warmer than it is now, and that never led to runaway warming due to increased water vapor.

How Do You Tell If The Earth's Climate System "Is Warming"?  A more precise answer to the question is that whether the earth's climate system "is warming" or "is cooling" entirely depends on who gets to pick the start date for the analysis.  If you are the one who gets to pick the start date, then you can make it so that the system is either warming or cooling, whichever you would like for your purpose of the moment.  But of course, there are many people out there today with a lot invested in the proposition that the climate system "is warming."  That proposition is a key tenet of global warming alarmism.

Why Hasn't The California Heat Wave Sparked The Usual Global Warming Hysteria?  This week, the southwest was hit with an earth-scorching heat wave, with temperatures well above 100 in some areas.  Normally that would cause every news organization to trot out "global warming is killing us" stories.  But not this time.  Maybe they've caught on to the fact that the public has tuned out.

Summer Causes Climate Change Hysteria.  Summers in the U.S. are hot.  They always have been.  Some are hotter than others.  Speaking as a PhD meteorologist with 40 years experience, this week's heat wave is nothing special.  But judging from the memo released on June 22 by Public Citizen (a $17 million per year liberal/progressive consumer rights advocacy group originally formed by Ralph Nader in 1971 and heavily funded by Leftwing billionaire George Soros's Open Society Foundations), every heat wave must now be viewed as a reminder of human-caused climate change.

Gallup survey: 36 issues mentioned, not one of them is climate change.  According to a survey published by Gallup, there are 36 economic and non-economic issues on the minds of Americans.  No one mentioned climate change.  As you might expect, economic issues were in the forefront of the voters' minds.

Young, dumb teenage girls form doomsday cult to fight 'global warming'.  A group of mostly teenage girls have formed a group with the doomsday-ish name "Zero Hour" because of their conviction that global warming is soon to destroy the world. [...] Here's what Zero Hour stands for:  [#1] A blockade of all fossil fuel production.  That sounds as though it could get violent. [...] [#9] Legalize hemp for "medicine." [...] [#11] Protect Queer and Transsexuals from the sexual violence caused by fossil fuel industries.  Who knew that at very same time a power plant produces energy for thousands of homes, it is also molesting transsexuals? [...] [#14] A recognition that capitalism, colonialism, racism, and patriarchy has led to global warming.  Notice how a whole lot of other issues have been mixed into this enviro-doomsday movement?

Rhode Island Opens Up New Front in Climate Change Lawsuit Offensive.  The Rhode Island attorney general filed a lawsuit in state court against ExxonMobil (Exxon), BP, Shell, and others, arguing that the energy producers knew their product contributed to climate change, but "engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal and deny their own knowledge" of possible resulting threats.  Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin asked for a jury trial in the Monday [7/2/2018] filing, seeking compensatory and punitive damages he believes the state "has sustained and will sustain" as a result.  The case bears similarities to a handful of other cases from around the nation, most of which originate from governments that have oceanfront boundaries.  One of those lawsuits was tossed out of federal court in California just last week.

Climate Change:  What's So Alarming?  Are droughts, hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters getting stronger and more frequent?  Are carbon dioxide emissions, global temperatures and sea levels putting us on a path for climate catastrophe?  Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, breaks down the facts about the environment and shows why the reality of climate change may be very different from what you hear in the media.

California's Costly Global Warming Campaign Turns Out To Be Worse Than Useless.  For more than a decade, California has won high praise from environmentalists for its stringent greenhouse gas restrictions.  But a new report shows that despite the enormous costs of this effort, the state is doing a worse job at cutting CO2 emissions than the rest of the country, while badly hurting its working families.

After 30 Years Of Data, Global Warming Alarmism Is Proven False.  It has been 30 years since the specter of global warming began to loom before the world.  It was 1988 when James Hansen, a scientist at NASA, first testified before Congress about the supposed link between the greenhouse effect and observed global warming.  Al Gore was late to the party when he released his Oscar-winning movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," in 2006.  With three decades of predictions about warming to look back on, we can now assess the accuracy of those early claims about global warming.

Climate Policy Should Be Set By Legislatures, Not Courts.  Climate change advocates are undoubtedly frustrated that they cannot succeed in getting legislation or regulation that is broad enough to satisfy their policy preferences.  So, with the support of some lawyers who see the possibility of a big payday in judgments or settlements, climate change advocacy is increasingly moving to the courts. [...] The reform that these policy advocates seek should not be accomplished outside the democratic processes and deliberation of legislative bodies.  Despite all the ills of the world, we must maintain the limits of the law, and we should appreciate what courts can and cannot do effectively.

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?  James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988.  Today earth is only modestly warmer.

When PC Comes Back to Bite You.  The municipalities of Oakland and San Francisco have famously sued various oil companies for contributing to climate change and the projected flooding of those port cities, but simultaneously have sought to minimize the threat in legal representations accompanying their issuance of municipal debt.  In plain English, they're trying to scare juries into awarding them huge judgments on the basis of apocalyptic predictions on the one hand, but reassuring the people who hold their debt on the other ("we are unable to predict if ... impacts of climate change ... will occur").

The IPCC: Never Has So Much Been Made Out of So Little by So Many at So Great A Cost.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the people who formulated the structure that directed their research, constantly manipulated the data and the methods to predetermine the results.  It began with the definition of climate change given to them as Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  This involved overstating and misrepresenting the amount of atmospheric CO2 currently, and in the past.  It also included misrepresentation of its movement through the so-called carbon cycle.  You can pick any segment of the Carbon Cycle they show in Figure 1 (Their Figure 6-1, Fifth Assessment Report) and none of it is based on actual measures, that is real data; everything is an estimate and can't qualify even as an educated guess.

Climate Change Has Run Its Course.  A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement.  The "nonbinding" pact declares that climate action must include concern for "gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity" as well as "the importance for some of the concept of 'climate justice.'"  Another is Sarah Myhre's address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.  The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.  Climate alarm is like a car alarm -- a blaring noise people are tuning out.

Uncertainties about human caused climate change were deleted from IPCC report.  Frederick Seitz asserts that the report on global warming released in Jun 1996 by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not the same version that was approved by the contributing body of scientists listed on the title page.  Seitz explains how the events that led to the IPCC report are "a disturbing corruption of the peer-review process" and says the deleted passages removed "hints of the skepticism" with which many scientists regard claims about global warming.

Forget 'Climate Change' — Now It's 'Climate Restoration'.  In the end, somehow we knew it would come to this.  The Left, in the form of the think thank RAND, has gone full Luddite:  ["]Since the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, society has organized efforts to limit the magnitude of climate change around the concept of stabilization — that is, accepting some climate change but holding it within acceptable bounds.  This report offers an initial exploration of the concept of climate restoration — that is, approaches that seek to return atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to preindustrial levels within one to two generations. [...]["]

'Global warming' claims a victim.  [Scroll down]  Reportedly, [David] Buckel recently "turned his attention" to apocalyptic predictions of climate disaster, which he fully bought into, presumably based on the phony scientific consensus propagated by the fraudsters who have to "adjust" real data in order to make their hypothesis slightly plausible.  The fraudsters know well that the human mind is vulnerable to predictions of apocalypse, and that encouraging panic is a great way to generate money.  Buckel was taken in by the panic, and, having vanquished his opponents in the marriage and transgenderism arenas, was convinced that he had a mission to save humanity that could be advanced by a dramatic self-immolation.  The Daily News account states that he likened himself to the Tibetan monks who self-immolated to protest China's occupation of their country.

David Buckel, prominent gay rights lawyer, burns himself to death in New York to protest global warming.  A "green" activist who was a pioneering lawyer for gay and transgender rights — including in the notorious "Boys Don't Cry" rape murder case — committed suicide by setting himself on fire Saturday morning [4/14/2018] in Brooklyn's Prospect Park in a grisly act of protest against the ecological destruction of the Earth.  David Buckel, 60, left behind a charred corpse and a typed suicide note that said he was burning himself to death using "fossil fuel" to reflect how mankind was likewise killing itself, police sources said.

The Editor says...
If only he had turned off his television and just looked around, he could have seen the truth:  There is no "ecological destruction of the Earth" resulting from the production and use of fossil fuels.  Mr. Buckel's situation was pretty bad when he set himself on fire.  Now it is probably much worse.

The Parade of Impending Catastrophes.  The best made up catastrophes are speculative and resistant to clear analysis.  Global warming is a catastrophe that happens 50 or 100 years in the future.  You can't argue decisively against it without waiting for 50 years.  It doesn't seem to matter if a catastrophe defies common sense.

Climate Change Trial Starts on Rough Footing for Environmentalists.  A civil suit playing out between five American oil companies and the municipalities of Oakland and San Francisco started off poorly for climate change activists.  In preparation for California v. Chevron, the date for which has yet to [be] determined, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ordered the litigants converge for a "climate change tutorial" in an effort to ensure all parties understood the scientific foundation that would form the basis of the trial.  The city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, the suit's plaintiffs who are championed by climate change activists, were reportedly thrilled by the prospect.  Some activists even compared the tutorial to the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, according to the Wall Street Journal.  The suit accuses the energy companies — BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Conoco Phillips, and Shell — of contributing to climate change and conspiring to cover up their knowledge of the associated detrimental effects.

Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare.  [Scroll down]  There is indeed an elementary error of physics right at the heart of the models' calculations of equilibrium sensitivity.  After correcting that error, and on the generous assumption that official climatology has made no error other than that which we have exposed, global warming will not be 3.3 ± 1.2 K:  it will be only 1.2 ± 0.15 K.  We say we can prove it.

The Flawed Methodology Behind Studies Measuring the Cost of Climate Change.  Many prominent studies used by the federal government to measure the costs of climate change rely on a flawed methodology that incorporates faulty economic models and fails to account for human adaption, according to a new report.  A new report released by the Manhattan Institute, a domestic policy and urban affairs think tank, sheds light on how the doom and gloom climate change scenarios painted by the federal government and those in academia are actually the result of "laughably bad economics."  For instance, a study conducted by researchers from Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley estimated that countries such as Mongolia would experience unbridled economic growth because of climate change, resulting in the average Mongolian earning four times more than the average American by 2100.

The "ten second" guide to the world of skeptics. 
  •   The evidence shows temperature controls carbon dioxide (you read that correctly).  Temperatures rise first, and CO2 follows.
  •   Global warming is real, but it started a century (or two) before our emissions.
  •   The world is warmer than in 1850, but cooler than 1,000 years ago, 8,000 years ago, 130,000 years ago, and cooler than most of the history of life on Earth.
  •   CO2 is called "pollution" but it feeds all plant-life on Earth.

In Startling Reversal, Scientific American Counsels People to 'Chill Out' over Global Warming.  Apocalyptic scenarios attributed to global warming are simply false and the human race will be able to accommodate whatever "climate change" throws at us, claims a remarkably sober new essay in Scientific American.  The essay, penned by John Horgan, the director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, analyzes two recent reports by "ecomodernists" who reject climate panic and frame the question of climate change and humanity's ability to cope with it in radically new terms.

Levin: 'Phony Science' of Climate Change Is About Control.  On his nationally syndicated radio talk show Tuesday [2/27/2018], host Mark Levin set the record straight on climate change when he said that the 'phony science' of climate change is about control.  "Every aspect of government's involvement in this phony science called climate change is about controlling every aspect of what takes place in your automobile, what takes place in your home, what takes place in your business," stated Mark Levin.  "That's what it's all about.  That's their reality, to use Obama's term."

1.5 degrees of climate madness.  The [Paris Climate] Agreement has a hard (and silly) target of limiting future global warming to 2.0 degrees C above what are called pre-industrial levels.  But there is also a softer (and sillier) target of 1.5 degrees.  As usual with international agreements, the language is vague, but all the countries say they will go for 2 but try for 1.5.  The big reason for this is money.  Under the Paris Agreement the developed countries are supposed to pay the developing countries whatever it costs to hit the target.  Given the goofy computer models it will be much harder, hence much more expensive, to hit the 1.5 degrees of warming target.  In fact immediate drastic action is required.  Hence the developing countries, which control the Paris process, get a lot more money a lot sooner.  This also raises the pseudoscientific question, what difference does this difference in targets make?

The left's civil war over climate change.  America's Democratic Party, environmental groups and clean-energy leaders pushing action on climate change are at odds over how best to address it.  Why it matters:  Conflict is erupting over the best technologies and messaging, and experts worry the fighting could stifle progress toward the big thing they agree on:  the need to address climate change.  The divisions, brewing for years, are escalating in the face of a Republican-run government that doesn't recognize the issue at all.

Climate change regulations are a costly non-solution to a likely non-problem.  If every country complied with its greenhouse gas reduction targets, the averted warming would be a mere 0.2 degrees Celsius by the turn of the century.  Proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and carbon taxes are all costs and no benefits.  These proposals would intentionally drive up costs throughout the economy — particularly in the energy sector, a primary driver of economic growth — all the while having no measurable impact on global temperature.  An estimated 1,600 coal-fired power plants are under construction, or planned, in 62 countries, many of which are developing countries that need a reliable electricity supply.  The continued use of coal demonstrates the futility of the Paris Agreement in achieving any averted warming.

"Atmosphere Cancer" — The Latest Name for Global Warming.  According to Business Insider, renowned marketing expert Seth Godin suggested in an interview that "atmosphere cancer" would be a far more engaging term to promote climate action, than "global warming" or "climate change".

Bill De Blasio Admits He Wants To Kill The Oil Industry With Global Warming Lawsuit.  New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said his administration's recent divestment action and lawsuit were meant to "help bring the death knell" to the the oil industry.  But de Blasio's remarks on killing off the oil industry directly contradict New York City's statements to the court, filed in their lawsuit against five major oil companies.  De Blasio recently announced the the city would divest its public pension fund from fossil fuels over the next five years, and the mayor filed a lawsuit against five major oil companies demanding billions for damages allegedly caused by global warming.

The Editor says...
Does the mayor's limousine run on batteries, or does it run on combustible products sold by oil companies?  How much actual (measured, quantified, demonstrable) warming can the mayor blame on "the oil companies?"  It would have to be measured in thousandths of a degree, wouldn't it?  What "damages" can the mayor point to, that resulted from unnatural temperature changes?  Does he have courtroom-quality evidence to support his claims?

The liberal media have all the facts!  Except when they don't.  I saw an article by the AP the other day where they were ripping Trump as a know-nothing because he tweeted that the Northeast could use a little of that global warming.  The article said 2017 was the warmest year on record except for El Niño years, which means that it was not the warmest on record.  The article could have been in The Onion for how worthless it was.  The intent was to make people believe that 2017 was the warmest on record.  The article should say that El Niño, La Niña, the Jet Stream, polar vortices, solar activity, and other natural phenomena control the weather and climate.  Meanwhile, a significant number of us repeat over and over again that the climate is cyclical and natural, as it always has been, and we are called stupid.

The CIA on Climate Change.  Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado notes that the State Department now has a searchable online database of historic documents, and Roger decided to see what a search for "climate change" would cough up.  The very first thing is a CIA assessment from August 1974 on the dire consequences of ... global cooling.  Guess what?  The world was going to come to an end!  We were all going to starve to death!  The remedy:  more power to the U.S. government, naturally.  Funny how that recommendation never seems to change no matter what the problem.

Trump Admin To Remove Climate Change From List Of National Security Threats.  The Trump administration will reverse course from previous Obama administration policy, eliminating climate change from a list of national security threats.  The National Security Strategy to be released on Monday [12/18/2017] will emphasize the importance of balancing energy security with economic development and environmental protection, according to a source who has seen the document and shared excerpts of a late draft.  "Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system," a draft of the National Security Strategy slated to be released on Monday said.  "U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth, energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests.  Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty."

Calculating the Cost of Global Warming.  We should remind the reader, that the assertion that humans have caused most of the recent global warming has not been proven.  The calculation of human influence on climate is based only on unvalidated climate models as described here and here.  In fact, most climate models cannot model the global warming from 1910 to 1945.  If they can't hindcast known global warming, how can they accurately forecast it?  Forecasting natural warming is obviously critical to computing the magnitude of man's impact, so we must remain skeptical of any calculation of man's influence.  To compute a cost for global warming, we have to assume global warming has a cost.  Then we must assume a value, in lives and treasure, for that cost.  We also need to assume a timetable of the costs and benefits, so we can apply an assumed discount rate for the money spent and the money saved.  One might say dubious climate model results are fed into dubious economic models and projections are then made for 100 years.

The Politics of Meaningless Words.  For weeks now, I've been stewing over a yard sign in one of the more virtue-signally parts of Denver Colorado.  The sign was bi-colored and two-part, and the top said "We Believe in Science" while the bottom said, "No human being is illegal." [...] But of course, we know, given the times we hear people proclaim they believe in science, that what they are actually trying to say is that they believe the Earth is warming and that the cause of the warming is human.  The first is questionable (we seem to be at best in a pause) and the second is... non-scientific, since the effect of humans on the climate is at best unproven, and the only "proof" of the very silly anthropogenic warming theory is computer modeling.  That is it to say, the only proof is no proof at all, and has always caused computer professionals to laugh and mumble GIGO (Garbage in, Garbage out.)

Bonn Climate Poseurs:  Their Real Goals Are Money and Power.  Yes, the fearmongering concerning the supposed "existential threat" of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming, or AGW, continues unabated.  However, despite all the usual hype and bogus claims of rising sea levels, disappearing icecaps, dying coral reefs, endangered polar bears, more virulent "extreme weather," climate refugees, etc., there has been no genuine science-based evidence forthcoming to support the ongoing florid claims that global surface temperatures have increased beyond what can be attributed to natural variability, or that they represent any crisis that justifies wrecking our economy and granting global dictocrats absolute power over every aspect of our lives.  There have been many recent scientific reports underscoring the erroneous and fraudulent "research" that has been put forth by the AGW lobby, but the focus of our report here is not to refute the latest round of their outlandish claims.  That has already been done in many previous articles [...]

Do humans harm the environment?  This is the first of seven posts on the potential costs and hazards of human-caused global warming and the impact of humans on the environment in general.

The 1970s Global Cooling Scare (and how the warming scare could not have happened without it).  Forty-five years ago today, two geologists penned a letter to the president of the United States warning that the rocky decent into the next ice age might have already begun. [...] Today, as the 1970s global cooling scare starts to pass beyond living memory, it is widely misunderstood.  This is especially in its relationship with the subsequent scare over global warming.  Warming skeptics will often talk up the scare, emphasizing how meteorologists have flipped from cooling alarm to warming alarm.  In fact, few meteorologists were involved in the cooling scare, while there were very few scientists of any variety who raised alarm over cooling and then switching to alarm over warming.

Twilight of the Climate Change Movement.  Don't be fooled by the fanfare in Paris:  The climate change movement faces big trouble ahead.  Its principal propositions contain two major fallacies that can only become more glaring with time.  First, in stark contrast to popular belief and to the public statements of government officials and many scientists, the science on which the dire predictions of manmade climate change is based is nowhere near the level of understanding or certainty that popular discourse commonly ascribes to it.  Second, and relatedly, the movement's embrace of an absolute form of the precautionary principle distorts rational cost-benefit analysis, or throws it out the window altogether.

Can A Cold Object Warm A Hot Object?  While the answer is generally no, it can do so in the special case when the cold object is hiding an even colder object from view. [...] And as a result, with the cold atmosphere shielding us from the nearly infinite heat sink of outer space, the earth ends up much warmer than it would be without the cold atmosphere.

The Corruption of the Climatisatas.  Today's wind and solar racket, and all of the fancy pieces of paper UN bureaucrats sign in Paris making promises that no nation is going to keep, will be looked at with the same disdain that we today look back at the League of Nations treaty and the disarmament efforts of the 1920s and 1930s.

Europe: Climate Dictatorship Proposed To Solve Global Warming.  [T]he current Paris promises will cost each American $500 per year, each European $600 and each Chinese $170.  Of course, most Americans and Europeans are unlikely to elect leaders that will actually incur a much larger cost than most people are willing to pay.  Moreover, these promises will not solve global warming — indeed, they will together achieve almost nothing:  By the UN's own estimate, the Paris Treaty will reduce emissions by less than 1% of what would be needed to keep temperature rises under 2°C and yet cost $1-2 trillion per year by 2030, mostly in reduced GDP growth.  So Paris will deliver far less than what most people expect, yet will cost much more than most people are willing to pay.  Of course, most smart people would be against paying lots for achieving little or nothing.  If anything, this suggests that democracy works just fine.  But [Professor Jørgen] Randers instead takes this unwillingness to spend fortunes on little benefits as an argument for ending democracy.

Climate Song and Dance.  Good news is hard to find at this year's United Nations climate conference in Bonn, Germany.  Diplomats from nearly 200 countries have gathered to review progress made on the "historic" Paris climate accords, signed two years ago.  But as the champagne-fueled self-congratulation of Paris recedes into memory, the agreement's underlying fraud is becoming obvious.  In theory, international discussions, negotiations, and agreements on climate change aim to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions and thus lessen the expected warming of the climate.  In fact, the Paris accord does not even attempt to achieve this goal, except nominally.  Instead, countries can pledge as much or as little climate action as they see fit, and no enforcement mechanism ensures that they deliver on their commitments.

Pope blasts 'shortsighted human activity' for global warming.  Pope Francis is blasting "shortsighted human activity" for global warming and rising sea levels and is urging leaders at climate talks in Germany to take a global outlook as they negotiate ways to curb heat-trapping emissions.  Francis met Saturday [11/11/2017] with a delegation of leaders from the Pacific islands and told them he shares their concerns about rising sea levels and increasingly intense storms that are threatening their small islands.  He decried in particular the state of oceans, where overfishing and pollution by plastics are threatening fish stocks and sea life that are critical to Pacific livelihoods.

100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made.  [#1] There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.  [#2] Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.  [#3] Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.  [#4] After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.  [#5] Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher -- more than ten times as high. [...] [#18] Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can't even pretend to control.

The UN Admits That The Paris Climate Deal Was A Fraud.  When President Obama hitched America to the Paris accords in 2016, he declared that it was "the moment that we finally decided to save our planet."  And when Trump pulled out of the deal this year, he was berated by legions of environmentalists for killing it.  But it turns out that the Paris accord was little more than a sham that will do nothing to "save the planet."  According to the latest annual UN report on the "emissions gap," the Paris agreement will provide only a third of the cuts in greenhouse gas that environmentalists claim is needed to prevent catastrophic warming.  If every country involved in those accords abides by their pledges between now and 2030 — which is a dubious proposition — temperatures will still rise by 3 degrees C by 2100.  The goal of the Paris agreement was to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees.

Congressional 'Climate Change' Report Relies On Work Funded By The Democrat's Largest Donor.  Congressional auditors released a report on the "potential economic effects of climate change" that relied heavily on research funded, in part, by a foundation tied to the Democratic Party's single largest political donor.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a major report on the future impacts of global warming.  Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Susan Collins of Maine asked GAO to do the report.  GAO's report relied on interviews with 26 unnamed experts and two studies to make its recommendation that federal agencies use information on future global warming to "take an initial step in establishing government-wide priorities to manage such risks."

Global Warming:  Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change.  [#10] The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.  The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate.

The New York Times Embraces Fake Science, Fake Engineering, and Fake Economics.  Global warming is now called climate change because the globe has not warmed for two decades.  The "science" behind predictions of global warming due to emissions of CO2 has clearly collapsed.  The promoters of the catastrophe are most charitably described as bad scientists and less charitably as snake oil salesmen.  The predictions are based on computer models that don't agree with each other and that have failed miserably in predicting the actual global temperature.  There is no shortage of distinguished scientists screaming that global warming is a fraud.  Even if you believe the junk science of climate change, the CO2 emissions are concentrated in Asia.  Reducing CO2 emissions in the U.S. at great cost makes no sense because the supposed problem is in Asia.

The Great Climate Hoax Challenged by 31,000 Scientists.  [Scroll down]  While the liberal left will tell you there is a scientific consensus on Climate Change (and consensus is definitely not the way science works), the reality is that there are over 31,000 scientists who say that global warming is a total hoax.  The scientists in question have decided enough is enough, and have united against the political agenda of global warming.  The scientific consensus supporting the concept of man-made Climate Change includes over 9,000 scientists (less than a third as many of those who are denying the reality of man-made Climate Change).  The "deniers" have decided the hoax has gone long enough and are now speaking out against the hoax of global warming and how global agreements to limit greenhouse gases are actually destructive to all plant and animal life on the planet.  A petition has been put into play, and includes important peer-reviewed research.  The research is backed by various scientists with a wide spectrum of expertise, and serves as a warning to the United States against signing international treaties that only put a financial burden on the citizens of the country, steal national sovereignty, and restrict its energy production.  The global warming alarmism, in other words, is pseudo-warfare designed to take down a country.

Global Warming? Not So Fast Say Scientists!  The climatistas really are a fun and lovable bunch to watch.  Also pathetic.  They are victims of their own doomsday scenarios of inexorably rising greenhouse gas levels and the parade of horribles soon to follow.  The Paris Accord, even if fully implemented, will barely slow any future warming accord to the standard climate orthodoxy (better known as "The Consensus"). That's why the former NASA chief climatista James Hansen called the Paris Accord "a fraud."  What do you do when, having told us for more than 20 years that "we only have ten years left" to act, the deadline passes and we haven't got anywhere close to a pathway to stabilize (let alone reduce) carbon emissions?  You change the scenario is what you do.

Two Models.  For most of recorded human history men have dealt with the weather in two ways:  adaptation and amelioration.  When sea levels rose, men moved cities inland.  But for the first time, policy makers don't want to adapt to climate, they want to change the climate itself.  Perhaps no one put it more clearly than Barack Obama in his 2008 nomination speech.  Now the seas would fall.  Describing the significance of his vision Obama said, "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."  The current program put forward by climate change advocates is frankly one of weather engineering.  Policy makers are going to change the quantity of carbon in the atmosphere by taxing energy consumption — and thereby reduce carbon.

The Editor says...
Carbon dioxide is not carbon.

Global Warming Surprises.  Temperature data in dispute can reverse conclusions about human influence on climate.  [PDF]

How climate alarmists deceive the public.  Leftists used to use to term "global warming" until 2003 when the temperature didn't rise while carbon levels emissions did, now they're using the phrase "climate change."  They know the public opposes carbon taxes and emissions caps, so they have to create new terms to mask their real intentions.

The great carbon scam.  One thing you learn on the climate change beat is that the best journalism is done overseas.  In Canada, too many in the media, not knowing the issues, are empty vessels waiting to be filled by Trudeau government propaganda, which they uncritically regurgitate to their audiences.  By contrast, in the UK, one of many examples of serious reporting is a new radio documentary by the BBC's environment correspondent, Matt McGrath.  Called "Carbon Counting," McGrath reveals how many nations that signed the Paris accord are inaccurately reporting and/or hiding their greenhouse gas emissions from the United Nations. [...] Why should Canadians care?  Because if global emissions are being under-reported and hidden, then the Paris accord is a fraud and carbon pricing in Canada, which raises our cost of living to reduce our emissions, is just a cynical government cash grab.

Why Global Warming Alarmism Is Wrong.  Dr. Judith Curry is one of the leading realist voices in the climate science community, even though she has now moved on from what she considers a hopelessly politicized field.  This 12-minute interview is a good introduction to some (by no means all) of the reasons why global warming alarmism is wrong, and why politics has badly compromised, if not completely ruined, a nascent scientific discipline.  Again, this is an introduction, not a master class, but it is well worth your time:  [Video clip]

Agenda Behind Global Warming Alarmism.  The alarmism got a big push in June 1988 when James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute, testified before a senate committee that he was "99 percent" sure that global warming was already underway.  He was a very small minority in the scientific community, but that's not the impression the media gave.  The same media that scarcely a decade earlier were publicizing warnings of a coming ice age pounced on Hansen's statement and were now filling the public with warnings of the opposite threat and familiar claims that something must be done "before it's too late."

The Nazi Origins Of Renewable Energy And Global Warming.  This article provides a critical historical between the doctrines of Nazi Germany and modern Sustainable Development, Green Economy and Technocracy.  I have documented that the U.S. Technocracy movement, once based at Columbia University in 1932, established a sister organization in Nazi Germany by 1933.  Technocracy was very appealing to German scientists and engineers and while the ideology lived on, the organization itself was terminated by Hitler because of perceived competition to his budding dictatorship.

Is Global Warming Alarmism a Complete Fraud?  I usually try to give global warming hysterics the benefit of the doubt — sincere but misguided, not good at math, unacquainted with the Earth's highly variable climatic history, and so on.  But sometimes data come along that make that sympathetic attitude hard to sustain. [...] There is no other branch of science in which such after-the-fact changes in data to fit a politicized theory would be greeted with anything but contempt.  Why are such shenanigans tolerated here?  Presumably many billions of dollars in government funding have something to do with it.  These charts are interesting, too.  Reading the newspapers, you would think that we are suffering through an unprecedented heat wave every year.  But that isn't true at all.

The Church of Man-Made Climate Change on trial.  A little-known court case is taking place in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Vancouver.  This case involves two scientists and two set of graphs.  One of the graphs is very famous, and the basis for every man-made climate change believer's faith, while the other... is not.  The foundation of the church of man-made climate change is on shaky ground, and an earthquake could be coming.  Michael Mann is a climatologist and geophysicist working at Penn State University.  In 1998, he was the leader of a group using statistical techniques that created a graph showing the earth's temperature over the last 1,000 years.  The graph would gain international fame and become known as the "hockey stick graph."  The graph showed steady temperatures on the earth's surface with a sharp increase in the last few hundred years, giving it the shape of a hockey stick.

Trying to scare us isn't working anymore.  These intellectually barren demagogues believe all Americans are as brainless as Ray Bolger in the Wizard of Oz but we 'deplorables' who voted for Trump are not the ones cerebrally challenged.  We're not the ones who've fallen for the biggest disaster hoax of all time — global warming.  Nope.  Our brains are working as fine as our president's and when we read that none of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truths have come true; that the polar bears are thriving; the earth's ozone layer is repairing itself and that some animals are being removed from the endangered lists, we have to restrain ourselves from shouting — "Told you so."

[Fighting] Climate Change has cost you at least $166 Billion so far.  The U.S. government spent nearly as much fighting "climate change" between 1993 and 2014 as was spent on the entire Apollo program between 1962 and 1973, according to a new report.  A May 2017 report from the Capital Research Center (CRS) states that "from FY 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion."  The total includes more than $26.1 billion from President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill, as well as regular annual budget amounts and federal tax credits distributed over a period of 21 years.

Questioning the Greenhouse Effect:
New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model.  A recent study has revealed that the Earth's natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years.

Global Warming:  The Imminent Crisis That Never Arrives.  [Scroll down]  But we have neither the space nor time to rack up all the missed global warming predictions.  So we will merely point out that instead of these disasters, we have the climate alarmist community admitting that there has indeed been a pause in the warming and that its models failed to predict it.  Yes, that's right.  The alarmists are acknowledging in the abstract of a research paper that was published this month in Nature Geoscience that there have been "differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates."  "In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble," wrote the climate scientists led by "climatista" Benjamin Santer and including the litigious Michael Mann, purveyor of the hockey-stick graph that supposedly proves human-produced carbon dioxide is overheating the planet.

Why the Russians Conceived the Global Warming Scam.  In short, for communism to succeed, capitalism would have to be portrayed as based on exploitation — but not of man, as the old Marxist theory held.  Rather, capitalism was now exploiting the earth!  The whole purpose of this dogma has been to inhibit global capitalism, the only system that has proven capable of meeting the growing needs of expanding populations.  But this time the claim was that human economic progress threatened the environment because of the capitalist model on which it was based.  Hence, President Obama's Paris climate change agreement was designed to curtail U.S. industrial expansion while sending foreign aid to the rest of the world.  It was a Marxist plan that benefited Russia, a major oil and gas producer.

The Marxist Roots of the Global Warming Scare.  The late Natalie Grant Wraga once wrote, "Protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West and all it stands for.  Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations.  It may also serve to introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting communist values."  And who was this person?  Natalie Grant Wraga (who died in 2002 at age 101) was an internationally-recognized expert on the art of disinformation.

Dr. Tim Ball Crushes Climate Change:  The Biggest Deception In History.  [Scroll down]  It is impossible to identify the human cause without understanding and including natural causes.  Few know that CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gases.  They assume that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase.  It doesn't, in every record the temperature increases before CO2.  The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models of the IPCC.  This partly explains why every single temperature forecast (they call them projections) the IPCC made since 1990 was wrong.  If your forecast is wrong, your science is wrong.

What Happened To The Hysteria About Trump-Induced Anti-Semitism?  If you think about it, there is never an extended period of time — one year, let's say — during which society is not engulfed by a hysteria induced by the left.  The mother of them all is global warming, or "climate change," as the left has come to call it (because the warming was not quite enough to induce widespread panic).  Hysterics like billionaires Al Gore and Tom Steyer, along with virtually all the Western news media, warn us that the existence of life on Earth is threatened by carbon emissions.  But in its longevity, global warming is almost unique among left-wing hysterias.  In general, left-wing hysterias last for much less time, from a few months to a year or two.  And when they end — because the hysteria is widely recognized as fraudulent — they're immediately dropped and completely forgotten.  The left never pays a price for its hysteria.

Climate change hypocrites.  [Scroll down]  But we've been to this movie before.  The Europeans were all in on the Kyoto Climate Change deal back in 2001 — an international treaty the U.S. rightly rejected.  Euroland promised a massive shift to green energy and to abandon fossil fuels to dramatically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.  But guess what?  The green energy revolution was a bust.  None of these countries came close to meeting those targets.  Now these nations, especially Germany, are moving away from the saintly clean energy sources.

The Absurdity that is the Paris Agreement.  Let us put aside initially any dispute about the science and evidence underlying the Paris COP-21 agreement to limit global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  Let us ask instead what the agreement ostensibly would achieve and what it would cost.  If we apply the EPA climate model under a set of assumptions that strongly exaggerate the effectiveness of international emissions reductions, the Paris emissions cuts, if achieved by 2030 and maintained fully on an international basis through 2100, would reduce temperatures by that year by 0.17 of a degree.  The US contribution to that dubious achievement — the Obama climate action plan — would be 0.015 of a degree.  Add another 0.01 of a degree if you believe that the Obama pseudo-agreement with China is meaningful.  (It is not.)

Peer-Reviewed: Paris climate promises will reduce temps in 2100 by 0.05°C.  Dr. [Bjorn] Lomborg's research reveals:
  •   The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule:  if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
  •   Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact:  if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no 'CO₂ leakage' to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
  •   US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
  •   EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.

No, I Am Not a Moron but Half the Country is Deranged.  Surely the most proof we have that the world has gone bonkers is the success of the biggest hoax perpetrated on this nation-global warming.  It has been perpetrated by a former US Vice-President who became one of the first carbon credit billionaires who never practiced what he preached to the gullible who fell for his inconvenient balderdash.  The fact is that the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory has been debunked by real scientists, not the pseudo scientists dependent on grants from militant environmental billionaires.  I find that many of those Chicken Little Hollywood celebs ranting about the planet dying are pure hypocrites jetting to UN conferences proclaiming global warming as the end of the world.

Is Global Warming A Myth?  For a long time, I have been skeptical of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, which I think is utterly refuted by the evidence.  But I have been willing to assume that in recent decades, the Earth has in fact gotten slightly warmer, consistent with the natural fluctuations that have been going on for millions of years.  At Watts Up With That, Dr. Fred Singer suggests that this assumption may be unfounded.  The balance of evidence, he argues, shows that the Earth has not warmed perceptibly during the time when alarmists claim to see the effects of CO2 emissions.

Al Gore and "Climate" Warriors Demand $15 Trillion to Save Earth.  Former Vice President and self-styled inventor of the Internet Al Gore, infamous primarily for his many debunked prophecies about global-warming doom, is demanding that humanity fork over another $15 trillion to supposedly save the planet from alleged man-made "climate change."  In a report produced by his new group of crony capitalists and tax-funded climate alarmists, dubbed the "Energy Transitions Commission" (ETC), Gore and his allies demand as much as $600 billion annually for decades to help meet the goals laid out in the collapsing United Nations pseudo-treaty on climate known as the Paris Agreement.  Critics, though, ridiculed Gore and his cronies, suggesting this was merely their latest scam to fleece taxpayers around the globe.  The ETC, which despite its official-sounding name has no formal ties to government, is backed by and made up of investors, Big Oil bosses, energy companies, fringe "climate" activists, megabanks, UN bureaucrats, Chinese Communists, academics, and other self-interested cronies.  In short, it is an alliance hoping to profit from the imploding "climate" scare by putting a global government-mandated "price" on emissions of the essential gas carbon dioxide, exhaled by people and known to scientists as the "gas of life."  Despite all of the hysteria pushed by profiteers such as Gore, human emissions of CO2 make up a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  But by being able to tax and regulate it, governments and their Big Business allies will make a fortune at humanity's expense.

The Global Warming Crisis Is Over.  [The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change] is an international network of some 50 independent scientists from 15 countries, many of them distinguished and with no financial stake in the debate.  Their new report consists of two volumes, each approximately 1,000 pages long, together citing nearly 6,000 peer-reviewed studies.
Here is what the scientists found:
  •   There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.
  •   Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC forecasts.
  •   Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate.  These were all false alarms.
  •   The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.
Here is what this means for public policy:
  •   Global warming is not a crisis.  The threat was exaggerated.
  •   There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.
  •   It's time to repeal unnecessary and expensive policies.
  •   Future policies should aim at fostering economic growth to adapt to natural climate change.

What You Need to Know About Climate, In One Chart.  From Andy May at Watts Up With That, a chart that contains an enormous amount of information relevant to the climate debate.  It shows global temperature as inferred from proxies (tree rings and the like), carbon dioxide and methane concentrations, and temperatures as predicted by the alarmists' models for the Holocene epoch, the time since the end of the last Ice Age.

You Gotta Lie.  The foundations for the unspoken, progressive faith in catastrophic man-caused global warming are self-evident.  Many Western elites believe that modern, free-market industrial growth and consumer capitalism endanger the planet. [...] The catch, however, is that most Americans believe that oil wells, mines, freeways, dams, cars, reservoirs, and factories — and the granite counters, stainless-steel fridges, and big-screen TVs that derive from them — are largely godsends, ensuring a good life undreamed of by their grandparents.  Or they believe that most accompanying deleterious effects on the environment, such as slight and periodic changes in temperatures, are outweighed by the benefits of industry and can be soon ameliorated by rapidly advancing scientific and technological remedies.  The result is an impasse.

On the Existence of a "Tropical Hot Spot" & The Validity of EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding.  The analysis results invalidate EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding, including the climate models that EPA has claimed can be relied upon for policy analysis purposes.  Moreover, these research results clearly demonstrate that once the solar, volcanic and oceanic activity, that is, natural factor, impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no "record setting" warming to be concerned about.  In fact, there is no Natural Factor Adjusted Warming at all.

Global Warming In One Easy Lesson.  Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. [...] Professor Lindzen recently wrote a letter to President Donald Trump explaining, briefly and cogently, why he and many other scientists are skeptical of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory — which, despite tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies, has failed to generate significant empirical support.

Alarmists claim they're for "science," but what they're really for is a left-wing religion.  [Scroll down]  Let's go back to points 1, 2 and 3:  1) Man's greenhouse gases contribute to warming, but scientists don't agree on how much.  Of 117 climate models from the 1990s, 114 overpredicted warming.  2) Warming is harmful.  Maybe.  But so far it's been good:  Over the last century, climates warmed, but climate-related deaths dropped.  Since 1933, they fell by 98 percent.  Life expectancy doubled.  Much of that is thanks to prosperity created by free markets.  But some is due to warming.  Cold kills more people than heat.  Carbon dioxide is also good for crop growth. [...] 3) Nothing we do today will stop global warming.

There Is No Scientific Basis for the Paris Climate Treaty.  The Paris Climate Treaty is supposedly an attempt to keep global temperatures from increasing 2 degrees C, but this objective is based on political science, not climate science.  The goal is an arbitrary political target based on climate activists' demands for a number, no matter how dubious or fake, to use in their fundraising letters and to appear on their signs at protests.  There is no scientific evidence suggesting a warming of 1.9 degrees C is safe while 2.1 degrees C is not safe.  Climate models that forecast temperature increases of more than 1 or 2 degrees during the next century are not scientific.  They flunk the objective requirements of scientific forecasting.  They are educated guesses by activists whose credibility and livelihood depend on showing ever-increasing certainty of impending doom, even as their data point in the opposite direction.

New Book Destroys AGW Myth, Gets the Climate Science Right.  In Evidence-Based Climate Science:  Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming, Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus at Western Washington University, has compiled the definitive book slaying any argument mankind is having a significant impact on global temperature.  The papers collected in this work analyze scientific data concerning patterns of past climate changes, influences in changes in ocean temperatures, the effect of solar variation on global climate, and the effect of carbon dioxide on global climate.  The book clearly presents an overwhelming amount of evidence that refutes arguments made by those promoting the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  The book's 21 chapters contain 400 full-color charts, illustrations, pictures, and graphs, which tell their own convincing stories.

G-20 Poised to Signal Retreat From Climate-Change Funding Pledge.  Finance ministers for the U.S., China, Germany and other members of the Group of 20 economies may scale back a robust pledge for their governments to combat climate change, ceding efforts to the private sector.  Citing "scarce public resources," the ministers said they would encourage multilateral development banks to raise private funds to accomplish goals set under the 2015 Paris climate accord, according to a preliminary statement drafted for a meeting that will be held in Germany next week.  The statement, obtained by Bloomberg News, is a significant departure from a communique issued in July, when finance ministers urged governments to quickly implement the Paris Agreement, including a call for wealthy nations to make good on commitments to mobilize $100 billion annually to cut greenhouse gases around the globe.

Environmentalists Use Photoshop and Fraud to Deceive.  You may have seen the headline, I did:  Antarctica hits record high temperature at balmy 63.5°F.  Where?  Base Esperanza.  Where is Base Esperanza in relation to what we normally think of as Antarctica?  A long, long distance away: [...] Base Esperanza is close to Tiera Del Fuego and not far from Africa, so warm temperatures there are not exactly shocking.  Plus, the weather phenomenon that caused the recent high temperature is well understood and has nothing to do with global warming.

Five Reasons Why Ridicule Is The Proper Response To Global Warming Alarmists.  [#1] They're wrong.  The devastating heat they predicted simply hasn't happened.  Climate scientists Roy Spencer, John Christy and others have showed this numerous times.  [#2] They've hidden their true agenda.  The zealots want to destroy capitalism and take over the world's economy. [...] [#3] They're hypocrites.  Every year, delegates, many of them on private jets, fly to Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, from where they hector the rest of us about our carbon footprints.

If Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Government Scientists Have To Keep Cheating?  It was in 1989 that Stephen Schneider wrote in Discover magazine that in order "to capture the public's imagination ... we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."  Let's not forget that the late climatologist was first a believer in global cooling in the 1970s.  He was worried that a new ice age was coming.  Of course the alarmist community has followed Schneider's script.  It's spent much of the last three decades trying to spook the public into a panic.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.  The Mail on Sunday today [2/4/2017] reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world's leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.  A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

We Need To Keep Obamacare Because Of 'Climate Change'.  The global temperature has literally gone up just a mere 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1850.  It's barely budged since 1998.

Trump Orders EPA To Take Down Global Warming Web-Page.  The Trump administration told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take down its global warming webpage, an anonymous EPA staffer said.  "If the website goes dark, years of work we have done on climate change will disappear," the staffer told Reuters Tuesday.  The staffer was not authorized to speak to the media and claimed EPA employees were scrambling to save data on the website.  The EPA's global warming webpage is currently still up as of Wednesday morning.  The page contains some links to EPA's data on carbon dioxide (CO2) as well as other greenhouse gas emissions and lists the effects the agency says global warming will have.  The site doesn't host much of the data, however, and only aggregates links to it.

Green Energy is a Charter For Crooks And Liars.  The Scam Must End Now.  When is the rest of the Western world going to catch up with Donald Trump and point out that the green emperor is wearing no clothes?  I ask as a concerned UK taxpayer absolutely sick to death of the vast sums of money that continue to be funnelled into the pockets of crooks, liars, spivs, chancers, con-artists and fantasists in the name of solving the non-existent problem of "climate change."

National Park tweets climate change facts in defiance of Donald Trump.  The Badlands National Park, located in South Dakota, has tweeted and deleted posts on climate change.  The account is the latest from the National Parks Service (NPS) social media presence to post on topics off-message from the White House.  The tweets discussed information about how levels of carbon dioxide are at their highest in history, citing the Organic Act of 1916, a federal statute that calls for the preservation of lands for the "enjoyment of future generations."

The Editor says...
If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere doubles by the end of this century (not likely), and the average world-wide temperature goes up two or three degrees (even less likely), nobody will even notice.  It certainly won't prevent anyone from enjoying the national parks.  In any event, the Badlands are called Badlands because they are utterly uninhabitable and completely useless for agriculture.  Nobody enjoys the Badlands now, except the tourists who come by and have a look, and then say, I'm glad I'm leaving this place soon.  I think it's safe to say the Badlands are so bad, they're immune to climate change.

All References to Climate Change Have Been Deleted From the White House Website.  At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it.  At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming.  It's customary for www.whitehouse.gov to flip over to the new administration exactly at noon, but the only mention of climate on President Trump's new website is under his "America First Energy Plan" page, in which he vows to destroy President Obama's Climate Action Plan, which is a government-wide plan to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change.  To reiterate:  It is normal that the site is completely new; it is notable that climate change is not mentioned on any one of Trump's new pages.

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion — To Have No Impact.  Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center:  "We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree... the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years... Again, that is using the UN's own climate prediction model."

Why NYT Hid The Numbers For The 'Hottest Year On Record'.  [W]hen you read an article proclaiming that, for the third year in a row, last year was the hottest year on record, you might expect that right up front you will get numbers, measurements, and a statistical margin of error. [...] I just got done combing through a New York Times report titled, "Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year."  The number of relevant numbers in this article is:  zero.  We are not told what the average global temperature was, how much higher this is than last year's record or any previous records, or what the margin of error is supposed to be on those measurements.  Instead, we get stuff like this. [...]

2016 edges 1998 as warmest year in satellite record — by 0.02°C.  Globally, 2016 edged out 1998 by +0.02°C to become the warmest year in the 38-year satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.  Because the margin of error is about 0.10°C, this would technically be a statistical tie, with a higher probability that 2016 was warmer than 1998.° The main difference was the extra warmth in the Northern Hemisphere in 2016 compared to 1998.

Birds with larger brains more likely to survive climate change.  Birds have evolved larger brains to cope in harsh environments where the tasks of finding food, evading predators and finding shelter are more demanding, say scientists who predict that smart creatures may cope better with climate change than less brainy ones.  Researchers, including those from University of Bath in the UK, used data from over 1,200 bird species to test whether large brains relative to body size are more prevalent in a harsh and unpredictable climate than smaller ones.

The Editor says...
In case you have just tuned in, the projected rate of global warming is about 2°F. per century.  It is unlikely that any bird in the world will live long enough to notice the difference.  In fact, if the whole world warmed up by two degrees overnight, the birds wouldn't notice.  Neither would anybody else.  If the birds find the weather objectionably hot or cold, they are able to relocate.  If they don't relocate, they can adapt to the new (imperceptibly) warmer or cooler temperatures.  And if they can't do that, then "survival of the fittest" kicks in -- which should make the Darwinist liberals rejoice!

Two dozen states beg Donald Trump to abandon Barack Obama's plans to combat climate change.  Officials in 24 states have urged President-elect Donald Trump to kill the centrepiece of President Barack Obama's strategy to combat climate change and shut down coal-fired power plants.  The coalition requested the incoming Republican government undo the Clean Power Plan enacted by the current Democratic administration.  The law was designed to lower carbon emissions mainly from coal-fired power plants by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels.

Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda.  The goal is to use climate change as a means to increase government power over every aspect of our lives, what we make, how we make it, what energy we use, what cars we drive, even what food we eat.  The scientific record, as IBD notes, shows that climate change is a scam: [...]

Global Warming and Climate Change:  Both Are False Narratives.  The earth is going through a cooling phase and warming alarmists lay claim to their ideology based upon false data that has been twisted to fit the Climate Change, Global Warming Narrative.

Global Warming:  Policy Hoax versus Dodgy Science.  [P]ublic concern over global warming (aka climate change) is at an all-time low remains at the bottom of the list of environmental concerns.  Why is that?  Maybe because people don't see its effects in their daily lives.
  [#1] By all objective measures, severe weather hasn't gotten worse.
  [#2] Warming has been occurring at only half the rate that climate models and the IPCC say it should be.
  [#3] CO2 is necessary for life on Earth.  It has taken humanity 100 years of fossil fuel use to increase the atmospheric CO2 content from 3 parts to 4 parts per 10,000.
  [#4] The extra CO2 is now being credited with causing global greening.
  [#5] Despite handwringing over the agricultural impacts of climate change, current yields of corn, soybeans, and wheat are at record highs.

Why Environmentalism Became Both a Religion and a Con Game.  [Scroll down]  The environmental con takes many forms.  In recent decades man-caused global warming is the con game.  That scare was deliberately manufactured in the 1980's.  Its purpose was, and is, to cripple the US economy, foremost, and the economy of Western Europe secondarily.  This program has had considerable success.  Many have bought into the con and the economy is hurting.  In particular, some who have knowingly promoted the con are politicians who seek to accumulate power and wealth.  Using the scare tactic of climate runaway, stupendous resources have been wasted on misguided attempts to reduce carbon dioxide:  solar power, wind power, alcohol fuels, suppression of coal, gas, oil and nuclear energy production.  Millions of jobs have been lost through unneeded environmental regulations.  Fortunately, Nature did not cooperate with the conmen and politicians.  The world did not heat up, as predicted.  Belief in global warming is rapidly diminishing, as it should.

Global Warming is Mild and Manageable.  "Climate change" — more precisely, man-made warming — is a side effect of using fossil fuels for cheap, plentiful, reliable energy.  To ask candidates to address climate change without addressing the unique benefits of fossil fuels is like asking the candidates to address vaccine side effects without addressing the unique benefits of vaccines.

Officials are unable to track £274m given in foreign aid to a controversial climate change organisation.  Britain has handed £274 million to a controversial climate change organisation and admits it doesn't even know what it was spent on.  The foreign aid donation to the Strategic Climate Fund was agreed so the Government can can meet its pledge to spend 0.7 percent of national income on foreign aid.  The fund runs projects in Haiti, Yemen and Cambodia but the United States has warned it might stop sending aid to these countries because their governments are considered among the most corrupt in the world.

The AGW Scam Runs Cold.  It is one thing to persuade gullible boy and girl reporters that climate change is sending the planet on a one-way trip to catastrophe, but average citizens are smarter than that.  They notice this year's other-than-predicted cold and their faith dies, one stupendous electricity bill at a time.

Trump and the Climate Change Clown Show.  Climate change is back in the news as President-Elect Donald Trump threatens to roll back much of the Obama climate agenda.  The Obama administration added 229 major regulations at an additional annual cost of $108 billion, many of which involve energy policy.  The "Clean Power Plan" is one such regulatory behemoth, jacking up the cost of energy under the guise of saving the planet from global warming. [...] As the debate heats up ahead of Trump assuming office, now is a good time to take another look at the doomsday predictions of global warming and the upcoming extinction of life on Planet Earth.  That's just hyperbole, right?  Actually, it's not.  A climate change scientist from the University of Arizona predicts human extinction in ten years.

Youth in Washington state sue government over climate change.  Eight children asked a state judge on Tuesday [11/22/2016] to find Washington in contempt for failing to adequately protect them and future generations from the harmful effects of climate change.  The petitioners asked the judge to require the state Department of Ecology to come up with science-based numeric emissions reductions.  The state argued that it has complied with the court's prior orders and there's no basis for finding the Department of Ecology in contempt.

The Editor says...
Examination of the facts in this case will show that the students have suffered no actual damages.  They perceive (incorrectly) there is a possibility and perhaps even a likelihood of future trouble as a result of "climate change."  But there has been no abnormal climate change, and there are no tanglible recently-erupted problems that can be uniquely blamed on the climate.  When people complain about frivolous lawsuits, this is what they're talking about.

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry.  It is often said that non-scientists must rely on "expert opinion" to determine whether claims on alleged "catastrophic man-made global warming" are true.  Putting aside the fact that there is no global-warming "consensus" among experts, one does not have to be a scientist, or even proficient in science, to be able to review past predictions, and then form an informed opinion regarding the accuracy of those predictions.  Suppose, for example, you regularly watch a local TV weatherman forecast the weather for your area.  Would you need a degree in meteorology in order to decide for yourself how reliable, or unreliable, the weatherman's forecasts are?  Warnings have been issued for many decades now regarding catastrophic climate change that forecasted certain trends or occurrences that we should already have witnessed.  Yet such predictions have turned out to be very, very wrong.

Global Warming:  Trump Is Adult Supervision The Climate Kids Need.  Outgoing United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon says the Paris climate deal is unstoppable.  That's nothing more than what he wants the world to think.  It can be stopped in the U.S., and if that happens, it will be shut down.  And who needs it anyway?  The Earth is cooling.

Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting 'State of the Climate Report' to UN Summit.  "All of the so-called 'solutions' to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate.  So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!" [...] Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming. [...] So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few hundredths of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit — differences that are within the margin of error in the data.  In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.

Study: Does the World Need Climate Insurance?  No.  President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers asserts that climate insurance, like fire insurance, is just common sense.  Their analogy, however, is fundamentally wrong.  House fires are not only serious, but also common.  We know what causes them, how often they occur, and the amount of damage that results.  For a few hundred dollars a year, a homeowner can protect himself against a known risk of a catastrophic incident.  Yet there is no empirical evidence that catastrophic climate change is a risk at all.

Fish don't live in the sky.  Drew Creighton at the Sydney Morning Herald gets excited:  Climate Change affects all levels of life. [...] It must be a pretty hot fisheries model to separate the the multifactorial uncontrolled nightmare of predator-prey changes and temperature shifts too-small-to-measure, spread over decades in an ocean where hot and cold water swirls in eddies right next to each other.  The story mentions "one degree of warming since the industrial revolution."  But that's air temperature, and fish don't fly much.

US Election Calls Out Global Warming Hoax.  Donald Trump's election as U.S. president triggered fears that his view that global warming is a hoax might lead other nations to scale back ambitions under a landmark climate change deal, while renewable energy stocks fell on world markets.

It doesn't get better than this.  Trump is one hundred percent skeptic, no pandering.  Finally, a leader says No to refueling the Global Green Gravy Train.  It will still take years to slow and unpack, because it is a pagan religion and a 1.5 Trillion Dollar industrial freight machine. [...] No wonder they are in tears.  The two main weapons of carbon-believers are the free money from government treasure chests, and coercion through namecalling.  Trump has control of the biggest treasure chest in the world and isn't afraid of being called names.

The Left Just Lost The War On Climate Change.  The liberal-left just lost the 'battle' against climate change.  Donald Trump isn't just skeptical about global warming.  He is what the alarmists would call a full-on climate change "denier".

Hubris: the Troubling Science, Economics and Politics of Climate Change.  This book should leave any dispassionate reader deeply disturbed.  It should be required reading for people in policy and politics who deal with these matters.  No thought leader should be ignorant of the contents.  How will humanity extricate itself?  One can hope that the accumulation of failed predictions over the next two decades will burst the bubble.  The world academies cannot be asked to sit in judgment on the misconduct, as they will be in the dock.  The UN is also hopelessly compromised.

Probability Based Climate Decision Tool.  The study of global climate change is fraught with uncertainty, as is much of science in general.  This isn't unusual.  By its very nature, science must be conservative.  Findings and conclusions should have a high degree of statistical significance (that is, you wouldn't expect them to happen by chance) yet, at the same time those conclusions can never be announced as "certain" or "settled science."

Climatologist: Despite the Hype, Paris Climate Accord 'Doesn't Really Do Anything' to Reduce Global Warming.  President Obama hailed the European Parliament's ratification of the Paris Climate Accord on Wednesday [10/5/2016] as "a turning point for our planet", but climatologist Patrick Michaels says despite the presidential hype, the international climate change agreement, which goes into effect on November 4th, "doesn't really do anything" to reduce global warming.  "The truth is that the Paris Climate Accord doesn't really do anything," Michaels, director of the Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science, said of the international agreement, which attempts to prevent average global temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100 by drastically reducing the carbon dioxide emissions of its 191 signatory nations.

Green Energy Reforms Will Hurt the Poor.  Consider the EPA's Clean Power Plan, released about a year ago.  EPA declared the CPP to be "a historic and important step" that "takes real action on climate change" and is "fair" and "flexible."  By talking about the CPP in such grandiose terms, EPA attempts to distract people from asking questions like, "Who will pay for this?" and "By how much will the CPP reduce climate change?"  Turns out, the effect on climate change is almost negligible.  Applying the same climate model used by the EPA, Benjamin Zycher, from the American Enterprise Institute, determined that the climate benefit of the CPP amounts to a temperature reduction of 0.0015 of one degree by the year 2100.

Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research.  A global warming research center at the London School of Economics got millions of dollars from UK taxpayers by taking credit for research it didn't perform, an investigation by The Daily Mail revealed.  The UK government gave $11 million dollars to the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) in exchange for research that the organization reportedly never actually did.  Many papers CCCEP claimed to have published to get government money weren't about global warming, were written before the organization was even founded, or were written by researchers unaffiliated with CCCEP.

U.S. Intel Alert:  Climate Change Aids Terrorists, Destabilizes Entire World, Stresses Military.  Climate change poses significant national security challenges for the United States and will create large-scale political instability, social disruption and food shortages, according to the nation's intelligence agency.  It marks the latest of many dire government warnings under President Obama about the ills of global warming and this one comes from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), though the agency concedes it's based on information provided by the famously corrupt United Nations (UN).  That the nation's intelligence agency has blindly adopted the information as fact is almost more alarming than the warnings outlined in its 13-page report.

Setting The Climate Record Straight — Theory vs.  Reality.  The science of climate is relatively new with many unknowns.  What we know for certain is that the climate has always been changing.  Climate mechanisms are highly complex, intertwined and take many years for changes to manifest.  Because of this, it is very difficult to test and validate climate theories.  As a result, scientists have resorted to computer models to test their theories ... but more on this later.  Many scary scenarios have described the purported consequences of so-called man-made global warming (aka climate change) which is supposedly caused by the burning of fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions.  The government has relentlessly used its many resources to push the CO2-causal theory, including nongovernmental entities who are vested in any climate crisis.  Still, polling of the general public continues to put climate at the bottom of today's problems.

Modeling Climate Change Decisions Using a Probability Tree.  Of the many important issues clamoring for the attention of world policy-makers and government officials, global climate change is among the most controversial.  Its existence, likely effects on the environment, probable causes, and possible solutions have all been highly politicized. [...] Policy solutions undertaken to deal with AGW, on the premise that it is dangerous (DAGW), will have massive monetary and non-monetary costs to society.  Such high costs demand a correspondingly high degree of certainty regarding the likelihood of possible future scenarios.  In particular, the scientific community must be able to show, with a very high level of confidence, that reducing or ceasing human activity associated with greenhouse gas emissions will stop or reverse global warming.  If this is not possible, policymakers should assume that DAGW is essentially unstoppable and consider defensive measures (adaptation) as the most prudent policy approach.

25 New Papers Confirm A Remarkably Stable Modern Climate.  It has by now become common practice for just about any and every unusual weather occurrence, extreme temperature anomaly, or seismic event to be somehow, someway linked to the human practice of using energy derived from fossil fuels.  No hurricane, flood, drought, storm, wildfire ... is spared from potential anthropogenic implication.  Last week, a named hurricane (Hermine) that ultimately devolved into a tropical storm landed along the Florida coast — the first landfall in 11 years.  As expected, the usual suspects reflexively blamed the storm on humans.  When a volcano erupts, the headliners are quick to point out that humans have made volcanic eruptions more likely.

In New Book Scholar Peels Back Layers of Deception in Climate Change.  [Scroll down]  I was initially motivated by questions from my students — and my wife — about the policy implications of climate change.  The more I looked into it, however, the more I learned the extent to which it fit with one of my research interests:  the extent to which modern health, safety, and environmental regulatory activity relies on poor science advanced by activists to push an agenda.  I learned that both domestic and international actors had succeeded in using the poorly understood science of climate change to advance an ambitious environmental agenda focused on increasing centralized control over people's daily lives.

Climate Alarmism:  Probably the Greatest Hoax in History.  Climate alarmism is nothing more than an attempt to scare people with unrealistic hypothetical climate outcomes based on computer models with no predictive power.  The far left is trying to use this alleged threat to justify Federal Government intervention in the fuel and energy markets.  Others, such as mainstream media, use it to sell their products.  The current proposition offered by climate alarmists is that if people who live in the more wealthy countries cut back their use of fossil fuels and therefore their human-caused CO2 emissions that the world can avoid the alleged catastrophic increases in temperatures based on the climate models.  Even the proponents' climate models do not show that the alleged effects could be avoided even if all the developed countries should somehow made substantial cuts in CO2 emissions.

How the World was Deceived about Global Warming and Climate Change.  Current weather is normal; that is, it is well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations.  There are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather.  The climate is changing just as it always has and always will and the rate of change is perfectly normal.  Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe.  The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.

Is the Global Warming Debate Over?  One of the more laughable aspects of global warming alarmism is the constant claim that the debate about the hysterics' claims is over.  In fact, the Earth's climate is so poorly understood that it is more accurate to say that the debate has barely begun.  But there are some things we know.  For example:  the increase in Earth's temperature resulting from a doubling of CO2, based on any recognized energy calculation, is less than one degree Centigrade.  Almost everyone agrees that this slight increase would be good.  So how do the alarmiststry to scare us?  They posit various positive feedbacks that turn one degree into three to six degrees.  Are these feedbacks proven?  Of course not.  They are simply assumed.  In fact, some are clearly false.  As far as we know, the net feedbacks will be negative, not positive.

Turn out the lights -- the party's over.
Climate change department closed by Theresa May in 'plain stupid' and 'deeply worrying' move.  The decision to abolish the Department for Energy and Climate Change has been variously condemned as "plain stupid", "deeply worrying" and "terrible" by politicians, campaigners and experts.  One of Theresa May's first acts as Prime Minister was to move responsibility for climate change to a new Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.  Only on Monday [7/11/2016], Government advisers had warned of the need to take urgent action to prepare the UK for floods, droughts, heatwaves and food shortages caused by climate change.

The Editor says...
Preparing for events that have never been proven imminent — or even likely — is not something that requires "urgent action."

Britain Abolishes Pernicious Department of Energy and Climate Change.  Good news is not easy for countermoonbats to find these days, but we have some more from Britain. [...] If something is not economically viable without coercive subsidies, it is not economically viable, period.  Wind energy is simply a means of redistributing taxpayer money to those with friends in government in the name of goofy Al Gore ideology.

The Blob is dead, scientists declare.  The Blob — a giant patch of warm water in the northern Pacific — has finally broken up, thanks in part to a strong El Niño, Images compared the region July 2015 to January, 2016.

The Tangled Web of Global Warming Activism.  There were several actions required to create the tangled web of deception relating to the claim that human-produced CO2 caused global warming.  It involved creating smaller deceptions to control the narrative that instead of creating well-woven cloth became the tangled web.  The weavers needed control of the political, scientific, economic inputs, as well as the final message to the politicians to turn total attention on CO2.  Their problem was the overarching need for scientific justification, because science, if practiced properly, inherently precludes control.  Properly, you go where the science takes you, by disproving the hypothesis.  However, before the planners could get to the science, they had to establish the political framework.  The framework was built around the need to prove the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (AGW), which held that global warming was inevitable.

A cool sun.  For more than a decade a small cadre of scientists has provided evidence that the fears about global warming are a vastly overblown horde of hot air.  The real concern, they say, is that we may be entering another ice age.  The current furor about global warming really only began in the late 1980s, when there had been little over a decade of warming.  A decade was all that was needed as the pretext to spark a movement to "save the planet."  Fueled by seemingly endless United Nations Eco-Summits, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rapid rise of dark green nature spirituality in the West, politicians and scientists warmed to the idea that humans are causing unprecedented heating of the planet.  We hear, ad nauseam, that permanent hair shirts are in order for alleged climate transgressions, including things like flying in airplanes, eating meat, or having more than 2.1 children.  If too late to stop catastrophic global warming (and that is the debate among wide- and wild-eyed true believers), then at least it is not too late to atone by the immediate surrender of the West's thousand-year struggle toward inalienable human rights and freedom from state tyranny.  Only totalitarian political micromanagement can save us; do it, or the planet fries.  The gaping crater in this fairytale is that the planet has actually not warmed for almost 20 years even while CO2 emissions have soared — thank you, India and China.  The alleged link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and global warming is now as tenuous as a snowball in the Sahara.

Hillary Clinton:  Drive Less, Reduce Personal Use of Electricity to Help Stop Climate Change.  Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged voters to look at their personal habits in order to stop climate change, calling it one of the world's biggest problems that the next president would have to face.

The Editor says...
On the contrary, global warming is probably the most inconsequential "problem" the world has ever had, mainly because it stopped, all by itself, several years ago.  And even if the world is gradually warming, there is no reason to believe such warming is mostly caused by human activity rather than by sunlight.  And even if global warming is mostly the result of the combustion of hydrocarbons, there is no solution other than to shut down all industrial activity and automobile traffic.  I think the best solution -- and certainly the lowest cost solution -- is to do nothing about it and let nature take its course.

Michael Mann, scientist:  Data 'increasingly unnecessary' because 'we can see climate change'.  Leading climate doomsayer Michael Mann recently downplayed the importance of climate change science, telling Democrats that data and models "increasingly are unnecessary" because the impact is obvious.  "Fundamentally, I'm a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change," Mr. Mann told the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee at a hearing.

Climate and Human Civilization for the Past 4,000 Years.  The Holocene Thermal Optimum ended at different times in different parts of the world, but it had ended everywhere by 4,000 BP (BP here means the number of years before 2000) and the world began to cool.  The timeline shown in Figure 1 shows the GISP2 Central Greenland ice core temperature proxies in blue and the HadCRUT 4.4 surface temperature estimates for the same area in red. [...] Major events in human civilization are noted on the graph. [...] Of necessity, this post covers the climate and human events in the northern hemisphere.  Some of the climatic events described, like the Medieval Warm Period, were worldwide events.  But, some may have only occurred in the northern hemisphere.  Nearly all of the historical notes are from Professor Wolfgang Behringer's excellent book A Cultural History of Climate.

The Tangled Web of Global Warming Activism.  There were several actions required to create the tangled web of deception relating to the claim that human-produced CO2 caused global warming.  It involved creating smaller deceptions to control the narrative that instead of creating well-woven cloth became the tangled web.  The weavers needed control of the political, scientific, economic inputs, as well as the final message to the politicians to turn total attention on CO2.  Their problem was the overarching need for scientific justification, because science, if practiced properly, inherently precludes control.  Properly, you go where the science takes you, by disproving the hypothesis.  However, before the planners could get to the science, they had to establish the political framework.  The framework was built around the need to prove the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (AGW), which held that global warming was inevitable.

Rebutting Climate Alarmism with Simple Facts.  Solar activity actually peaked somewhere around the middle of the 20th Century, and at elevated levels not seen since the Medieval Warm Period (1,000 years ago) or the Roman Warm Period (1,800 years ago.)  Solar activity remained at this high level through the start of the 21st Century, with temperatures rising at the same time.  While the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that changes in solar "irradiance" have little impact on climate, other research argues that accompanying variations in the solar wind and solar magnetic field contribute significantly to changes in global climate.  In fact, Russian scientists studying solar variability now worry that declining solar activity could lead to globally cooler temperatures by 2030.

Climate Change Prediction Fail?  The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on June 10 and 11, 1986, to consider the problems of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, and climate change. [...] At the time, the Associated Press reported that [NASA's leading climate modeler James] Hansen "predicted that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years" and "said the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020."  These increases would occur due to "an expected doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2040."  UPI reported that Hansen had said "temperatures in the United States in the next decade will range from 0.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees higher than they were in 1958."  Citing the AP report, one skeptical analyst reckoned that Hansen's predictions were off by a factor of 10.

Communism Disguised as Climate Change.  First, the name was changed to "Climate Change".  How convenient.  Progressives use language the way Clinton uses women, and this term can be molded to fit whatever is needed on any given day.  Then Hollywood, hotbed of communism-lovers that it is, got on board.  George Clooney, Leo DiCaprio, and Ed Begley, Jr. started to push the term "climate deniers," even calling those of us who can read and understand science "stupid."  Now, in the past few months, the great "climate change" pinnacle has been reached.  It's the greatest threat to mankind, or the US, or something.  Finally I saw what others have said for quite some time.  There IS a goal behind the "Global Warming/Climate Change" push.  Elites wish to destroy capitalism in lieu of communism in order to line their pockets and run the world.

Stephen Moore:  Climate Change 'One of Greatest Propaganda Campaigns in World History' — 'Very Stalinistic'.  Commenting on the Obama administration's high-pressure offensive to address global warming, leading economist and author Stephen Moore said it is "amazing" because this "dingbat idea of global climate change" is "one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history" executed by the political left.  During a June 3 radio interview on the nationally syndicated Janet Mefferd Today show, Moore, the founder of the Club for Growth and a former Wall Street Journal editorial board member, said, "It's really amazing, I have to say.  I have to tip my hat to the left:  This has been one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history that the left has pulled off."

Climate accord 'irrelevant,' and CO2 cuts could impoverish the world:  Scientist.  The world's historic effort to reduce carbon emissions is likely to be a costly if not quixotic endeavor, according to one expert, whose recently published research warns that decarbonizing the globe could have devastating consequences on the world's way of life.  In a report published this week, the International Energy Agency issued a call for "concrete action" to match the ambitions of last year's landmark climate change agreement, which was recently ratified by nearly 200 countries.  The energy watchdog said the transition to a low-carbon future would require "massive changes in the energy system" to prevent the globe's temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius.  Yet the agency also put a steep price tag on efforts to combat climate change.  In order to decarbonize the power sector within the next 40 years, the world would have to invest at least $9 trillion — and an additional $6.4 trillion to make other industries more environmentally friendly.

Another global warming prediction bites the dust.  Whenever there is a new record set, whether rain, hurricane, drought, etc., those in the climate change alarmist camp seem to be quick to point to global warming as the cause and make more dire predictions regarding the future — even when there are other documented reasons and even when hard data (not models) disputes the claim.  Such is the case with Lake Mead.

The Global Warming Shakedown, Part IV.  Whether they call it global warming or climate change, activists on the left are acting as if the issue is just an excuse to extort money and expand the power of government.

Introducing the global warming speedometer.  The new global warming speedometer shows in a single telling graph just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have over-predicted global warming.  The speedometer for the 15 years 4 months January 2001 to April 2016 shows the [1.1, 4.2]°C/century-equivalent interval of global warming rates (red/orange) that IPCC's 1990, 1995 and 2001 reports predicted should be occurring by now, compared with real-world, observed warming (green) equivalent to less than 0.5°C/century over the period.

All This for .01 Degrees Celsius?  As the president reveals his plan to reduce greenhouse gases to save us from an apocalyptic atmosphere, I wish to remind people of three things:  [#1] The true hockey stick of the fossil fuel era:  Global progress in total population, personal wealth and life expectancy.  This is truly amazing.  To show how fossil fuels played a roll in expanding the global pie, there are many more people alive today living longer and enjoying a higher GDP.  One has to wonder if someone against fossil fuels is simply anti-progress.

Obama on Climate Change: 'We Can See it Happening Right Now'.  President Barack Obama told graduates at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., "to insist upon and shape an informed debate" about climate change, adding that climate change is not subject to "political spin."  "Climate change is not something subject to political spin.  There is evidence.  There are facts.  We can see it happening right now," he said in a commencement address.

Climate Crisis and Political Power.  Sound science produces predictions that come true.  The science behind climate change does not.  Indeed, the experts have been proven wrong time and time again.  Around the time of the first Earth Day, scientists were predicting a coming ice age.  Then, as global average temperatures rose in the 1980's, global warming became the big threat.  Al Gore in 2005 predicted that the polar ice caps would be gone by 2015, leading to a catastrophic rise in sea levels.  But in 2015, the polar ice caps were not gone.  They were, in fact, above the average for the period since 1979.  The computer climate models predict steady warming.  But the warming stopped in 1998.  If the computer models cannot accurately predict what is now the past, why should we rely on them to predict the future?  That's exactly why the threat of "global warming" suddenly became the threat of "climate change," a much more generalized — indeed, fuzzy — term.

"Climate Hustle" demolishes climate alarmism.  The film is informative and entertaining, pointed and humorous. [...] It examines the science on both sides of the issue[,] presents often hilarious planetary Armageddon prophecies of Al Gore, Leonard Nimoy and other doomsayers[,] and lets 30 scientists and other experts expose the climate scares and scams, explain Real World climate science, and delve deeply into the politics and media hype that have surrounded this issue since it was first concocted several decades ago[.]  Sizzling temperatures.  Melting ice caps.  Destructive hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts.  Disappearing polar bears.  The end of civilization as we know it!  The end of Planet Earth!  Emissions from our power plants, cars, factories and farms are causing catastrophic climate change!  Or are they?  Is there really a "97% scientific consensus" on this?  Or is "dangerous manmade climate change" merely the greatest overheated environmentalist con-job and shell game ever devised to advance the Big Green anti-energy agenda?

America in Wonderland.  In the 1970's the professional fear mongers (mostly on the Left) warned the world of an impending Ice Age and its dire impact on the globe, their solution: more government spending and centralized control of the economy.  That threat failed to sufficiently strike fear into the hearts of the people so beginning in the late 1980's Global Warming became the cause celebre.  Learning their lesson from the failed Ice Age gambit, the proponents cited all sorts of "scientific consensus" to buttress their argument and unsurprisingly their solution was:  more government spending and centralized control of the economy.  Recently, when the actual research revealed that there was in fact no appreciable global warming over an 18-year period, the terminology shifted to Climate Change (a meaningless catchall phrase as the climate is consistently variable.)  This is now "the" potential scourge of the earth and the solution:  yes, more government spending and centralized control of the economy.

Deep Sixing Another Climate Myth.  There has never been a period in Earth's history when the climate has not changed somewhere, in one way or another.  People can and do have some influence on our climate.  For example, downtown areas are warmer than the surrounding countryside, and large-scale human development can affect air and moisture flow.  But humans are by no means the only source of climate change.  The Pleistocene ice ages, Little Ice Age and monster hurricanes throughout history underscore our trivial influence compared to natural forces.  As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact.

Climate Change:  The Greatest Conspiracy Against the Taxpayer, Ever!  Climate change is the biggest scam in the history of the world — a $1.5 trillion-a-year conspiracy against the taxpayer, every cent, penny and centime of which ends in the pockets of the wrong kind of people, none of which goes towards a cause remotely worth funding, all of it a complete and utter waste.

Five points about climate change.  [Scroll down]  The combustion of ever increasing quantities of fossil fuel has boosted the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere.  The physical impact of that increase is not demonstrable in a scientific way.  There may be some warming of the atmosphere, but at present any warming is almost certainly hidden in the natural variation of temperatures.  There is no significant evidence either for any increase in the frequency or magnitude of weather phenomena, or climate-related changes in the biosphere.  Any sea level rise over the coming century is unlikely to present an insuperable challenge.  Attempts to influence global temperatures by controlling carbon dioxide emissions are likely to be both futile and economically disastrous.

What's the Real Agenda Behind Climate-change Alarmism?  The world leaders and activists who attended the UN Climate Summit in Paris last December are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right?  That's the standard narrative, isn't it?  Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth.  More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth — through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc.  But don't take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves.  Take, for instance, Dr.  Ottmar Edenhoefer — not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr.  Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles.  He says, "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare.  We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming.  Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants.  But this is simply not true.  The narrative is a ruse.  They are after something entirely different.  If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures — they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.

Original Sin ... and Global Warming.  Many theologians, including Pope Francis, have taken the position that the planet is in danger because of carbon dioxide input to the atmosphere caused by burning fossil fuel, urge us to stop, and consider it a moral imperative.  This article takes the position that this use of fossil fuel has helped civilization advance worldwide, has alleviated abject poverty for billions, and that there is no substitute for it at this time.  Thus there is a strong moral component on this side of the argument as well.  This paper reviews a great deal of worldwide data, some of which confirms, some of which disputes the global warming hypothesis.  While increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is a concern, it is hardly a planetary emergency.

Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900.  It is widely promulgated and believed that human-caused global warming comes with increases in both the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.  A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change.  The disconnect between real-world historical data on the 100 years' time scale and the current predictions provides a real conundrum when any engineer tries to make a professional assessment of the real future value of any infrastructure project which aims to mitigate or adapt to climate change.  What is the appropriate basis on which to make judgements when theory and data are in such disagreement?

A New Study Shows How Climate Science Could Be All Wrong.  Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of being "anti-science" because they tend to be skeptical about claims made by climate scientists — whether it's about how much man has contributed to global warming, how much warming has actually taken place, or scary predictions of future environmental catastrophes.  There's a scientific consensus, we're told, and anyone who doesn't toe the line is "denier."  Yet even as deniers get chastised, evidence continues to emerge that pokes holes in some of the basic tenets of climate change.  Evidence such as the fact that actual temperature trends don't match what climate change computer models say should have happened since the industrial age.  Or that satellite measurements haven't shown warming for two decades.  Or that past predictions of more extreme weather have failed to come true.

Yet Another Hottest Year on Record?  The people selling global warming have been at it for more than 20 years.  For the last 18 years, on good authority, the Earth hasn't warmed.  It doesn't seem to matter.  The promoters of global warming are defending their turf, economic and ideological.  They dismiss or deny the lack of warming, making up science as they go.  President Eisenhower, in his farewell address, put his finger on part of the problem.  When science is funded by the government, it becomes less scientific and more political.  Around 1970, scientists as incorruptible seekers of truth gave way to scientists as political bosses collecting grants from the government. [...] It is not practicable to power the country with windmills and solar energy.  But the manufacturers of these things eagerly support global warming alarmism.  A substantial part of the corn crop is wasted by mandating the production of ethanol, for global warming reasons.

A sure sign of warmism in decline: Yale closing down its 'Climate and Energy Institute'.  Peak warmism has already hit, and the global warming movement is now on its long glide path through loss of government funding, budget and hiring cuts, less media attention, on the way to unfashionability, embarrassment, and eventually obscurity, a historical footnote like phrenology (which was once the rage in elite academic circles).  In retrospect, the December 2015 Paris Climate Accord, which was still able to draw heads of state but which could accomplish nothing substantive other than promise money, may well be seen as the definitive moment at which the movement began its official decline.

The doctored science of global warming.  Skeptics of President Obama's climate change agenda say they see new evidence of fraud.  If administration officials are colluding with scientists to cook the evidence, such as it might be, to demonstrate that the planet is warming, the skeptics deserve everyone's thanks.  Whistleblowers within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) complained last year that a major study by agency researcher Thomas Karl, refuting evidence of a pause in global warming, had been rushed to publication.  The implication was that the study was coordinated with Obama administration officials to add to the urgency of the president's climate change agenda in advance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.  Republicans on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology issued a subpoena of records of NOAA communications dealing with the study.

The Current State of Climate Alarmism.  America's affliction with climate alarmism is shaped by two facts:  First, the main instigators have crossed the Rubicon and have no choice but to fight.  How has this happened?  Nature was one cause:  the short-term natural warming in 1978-1998 was mistaken for anthropogenic warming through the confirmation bias.  Natural cooling from 1999 onward has canceled the expected anthropogenic warming (which is small, beneficial, and caused by a variety of factors — not just carbon dioxide release).  But other causes were entirely manmade.  In hindsight, it is clear that for almost two decades (approximately 1988 — 2004) multiple groups of climate "scientists" have been fabricating results in parallel, unaware that others were doing the same.  Mann with his hockey stick got the most fame, but he was just one among many.  Computer models, descriptions of the carbon cycle, and even instrumental temperature records were forged to exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, to hide past climate variations, to argue that carbon dioxide release is irreversible, etc.  The environmental movement, encouraging and encouraged by this perversion of science, made global warming its central theme.  And so did many mainstream politicians.  Al Gore was the towering figure among them.

So much for settled science.  Recent testimony by Professor John Christy demonstrated that the "climate theory" has been "falsified."  That theory is embodied in models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Christy presented a comparison of more than 100 model runs by the IPCC's latest model and temperature data from weather balloons and satellites compiled by three different organizations.  The model greatly overestimated atmospheric warming.  If the model is wrong, so must be the theory that it represents.  There are two primary reasons why.  First, the warming potential of CO2 is non-linear, which means that the amount of warming from an increase in atmospheric concentrations is less than increases that preceded it.  Second, the actual warming that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s is less than would be predicted by the increase in CO2 concentrations.

Mugabe First To U.N. Trough In Global Warming Shakedown.  Zimbabwe tyrant Robert Mugabe is asking the United Nations for $1.5 billion a year to feed his people, who he says are hungry due to global warming.  The looting begins.  About a year ago, we said that the global warming scare is not about stewardship of the environment.  It is instead an effort to pull down capitalism and redistribute wealth from rich nations that earned it to poorer nations whose governments impoverish their own people.  Mugabe fully understands the plan and is making his demands accordingly.

Profiteers of Climate Doom.  The alarmists' predictions of global warming resulting from increased CO2 in the atmosphere have failed to come true.  In scientific terms, that is the end of the story.  A theory that is refuted by observation is wrong.  But since billions of dollars in government money are flowing into the alarmists' coffers, they endlessly try to make excuses for their theory's failure, even as they cover up that failure by retroactively altering temperature records.  This is the greatest scandal in the history of science, in my opinion.

Why Skeptics are Losing the Climate Change Battle.  [It is an] illusion that there is such a thing as a Global Temperature.  There is no such entity and never has been.  Furthermore there is no such thing as an average Global Temperature either.  Peace be to Dr. Christy of the University of Alabama, for whom I have the greatest respect.  He assures me that there is an average Global Temperature arrived at by inference from remote sensing from satellites.  This is done by counting the number of joules, which as you all know I trust, are units of energy.  But may I humbly beg to differ.  It is manifestly impossible to put in all the data in order to arrive at an average.  It is clear that an average such as NASA provides based upon some 3,486 weather stations situated at 5 ft above the ground is just nonsense.  Why?  Because in the whole of this sacred Planet of ours to determine the temperature based upon such a sparse amount is truly ridiculous.  Moreover of the 3,486 stations 3,269 are situated in the relatively warm areas of Europe, America, and Africa.  How many stations are there in the vast continent of Antarctica?  Merely 8.

1400 CEOs — Climate Change [is] Not a Major Worry.  The high profile UN summit on climate change in Paris appears to have had little impact on the decision making and worries of global business leaders. [...] [O]ver-regulation was listed as the biggest threat to business (by 79% of CEOs), followed by geopolitical uncertainty (74%) and other key threats including cyber attacks (61%).  In contrast, climate change and environmental damage was mentioned as a threat to business growth by just 50% of CEOs.

1001 Reasons why Global Warming is so Over in 2016.  Climate change is over.  It's a busted flush.  The alarmists now have all the credibility of bewildered Harold Camping followers shivering on a mountaintop the morning after the night before, looking all shifty and embarrassed as they realise the Rapture their models so confidently promised just ain't going to happen.

Climate Change Science & the Climate Change Scare.  Belief in manmade "Global Warming", now renamed "Climate Change", the idea that mankind is changing the climate in a dangerous way, has become a ruling conviction of the modern age.  It has also generated a vast and lucrative establishment, receiving enormous amounts of tax-payers' money, and providing funding, careers, jobs, and reputations for an immense army of activists, scientists, bureaucrats, journalists, and politicians around the world.  It has captured the big media, university departments, academic publications and scientific bodies.  Anybody who questions it is likely to be demonised, to lose their funding, to have publication of their papers denied, and to have their careers put in jeopardy.

The Climate Industry and the 'Green Religion'.  We are so lucky that Al Gore's "true planetary emergency" did not take place.  He predicted it ten years ago at the Sundance Film Festival where his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," premiered.  It was the result of an environmental crusade he embarked upon that would make him a billionaire, a Nobel Prize and a Golden Globe winner — "Educating the masses that global warming is about to toast our ecology and our way of life."  His dire predictions that the planet will be flooded, islands will be swallowed up by the melting of the glaciers, and the planet will roast did not happen.  The surface temperatures have increased in some areas thanks to El Nino, a natural event, not because of anthropogenic CO2, the gas of plant life.

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever.  Before we begin, let's establish what we know to be correct.  The global average temperature has increased since the 1980's.  Since the 1980's glaciers around the world are receding and the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean has lost ice since the 1980's, especially during the summer months.  The average global temperature for the last 10 years is approximately 0.35 degrees centigrade higher than it was during the 1980's.  The global warming community has exploited these facts to "prove" that human activity (aka burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of these increasing temperatures.  But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity.  The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data.  Here are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing "global warming" or "climate change".

20 Ways To Tell If You Might Be A Liberal.  You might be a liberal if... [#3] You insist that anyone who questions global warming hates science even though you don't understand any of the science behind it yourself and you say we have to do something about climate change primarily because you want to impress your liberal friends.

Why the Climate Change Act should be Repealed.  Politicians, UN bureaucrats, environmentalists, academics, the establishment media and greedy big business have worked together for years to spin an alarmist narrative on the allegedly dangerous effects of alleged man-made global warming and how we must take drastic action to tackle this threat and thereby "save the planet".  They have repeated the politically correct mantras of this narrative for so long that they have apparently come to believe that their own made-up propaganda is actually true, e.g. "the science is settled"; "man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats the world faces"; "97% of scientists believe in made-made global warming"; "man-made climate change is causing more frequent extreme weather events" — all debunked within this paper.

Carbon Dioxide Reduction Policies Are Destructive And Immoral.  Paris conferees say further greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions are essential to hold global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius (3.5 F) and prevent climate and weather disasters resulting from fossil fuel use.  But these cataclysms exist only in computer models, press releases and treaty discussions.  In the real world, global temperatures haven't risen in 19 years; no category 3-5 hurricane has struck the U.S. in a record 10 years; sea levels are rising at barely 7 inches per century; and Greenland and Antarctic ice are at record levels.  Earth's climate changes regularly, but recent trends and events are in line with historic experience, and many scientists believe the sun and other powerful natural forces may soon usher in a new era of colder temperatures.

Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years.  The [COP21] deal sets various goals for 2023, and for 2050 through 2100. [...] Consider that 2023 is eight years from now.  Eight years ago, did anyone at COP21 know Uber was coming?  Did any of those foreign ministers know how popular drones would become?  That new supersonic passenger planes would be in development?  That four different private companies would be launching space flights?  That two companies would be going forward with tests of "hyper-loop" transportation?  Did they know that zero-friction "quantum levitation" would be demonstrated?  Or that hydrogen-powered cars would become commercially available?  Did they know about the fracking boom?  Of course not.  Michael Crichton — the brilliant novelist and thinker — posed this question in a speech at Caltech in 2003, re climate predictions for 2100.  What environmental problems would men in 1900 have predicted for 2000?  Where to get enough horses, and what to do with all the manure.

Climate Panic: Where Do Humans Live?  Let's start with a question that no one ever discusses:  where do human beings live on this planet?  Inuits have lived near the arctic in primitive conditions for thousands of years.  I hear it is very cold there — often below zero for months at a time.  Frankly I can't understand why they didn't move to Florida, but perhaps the tax rates in the Arctic were even more favorable than in the Sunshine State, or perhaps some ancient Seminole chief Big Trump built a wall.  Likewise, Arabs and other tribes have lived in the desert for thousands of years where it is very hot (sometimes 125 degrees in the summer), yet became the "cradle of civilization."  Hmm:  seems humans can flourish in a wide range of extreme temperatures — the extremes at either end of the chart [shown here].  Yet a prospective four-degree global average temperature rise over a century or more is supposed to be the end of mankind?  What kind of wimps do they take us for?

100 reasons why climate change is natural.  [#1] There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.  [#2] Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.  [#3] Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.  [#4] After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.  [#5] Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher — more than ten times as high.

Don't Fear Global Warming, It Won't Be Here For A While, If At All.  [A recent] Scientific American article tells us, "Climate change will not be dangerous for a long time."  It's the "lukewarm" position between two views:  1) man's carbon dioxide emissions are going to kill us and 2) the entire global warming scare is a fraud or hoax.

Climate Change and the Madness of Crowds.  [C]ontrary to all the Establishment's climate change propaganda and despite ever-rising man-made CO2 emissions, there has been no discernible man-made global warming from 1850 (and before) to the present time.  This means that the chances of dangerous manmade global warming happening in the future are almost certainly remote in view of (i) the hopeless failure of every UN IPCC prediction of man-made global warming since 1988 and (ii) all the blatantly obvious spin, exaggeration, obfuscation and downright deception put out by supporters of the "climate change" movement — even its name is obfuscatory — all confirming the perception that it is "pseudoscientific fraud".  The facts show that man-made global warming is a non-problem which does not even exist in the real world, only in the virtual reality world of the UN IPCC's hypothetical, simplistic, unvalidated computer climate models, only sustained by unfounded Establishment propaganda.

Debunking 5 Phony Statistics Liberals Love To Toss Around.  [Phony statistic #5:]  Ninety seven percent of scientists agree that global warming is manmade and dangerous.  How do you prove 97% of people agree with you?  Find a tiny subset of a group that thinks just like you do and claim that it speaks for a much larger group of people.  Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer did an excellent piece explaining how this works at the WSJ. [...] It's simply untrue that the scientific community has decided almost as a whole that global warming is happening, manmade and problematic.  Many scientists believe that's the case.  Many others don't.  At this point, it's merely a controversial unproven theory.

The perfectly respectable environmental movement has been hijacked by radicals.  [Tabatha Southey of The Globe and Mail] mocks those who say that "The Earth stopped warming 15 years ago."  But the problem is not just that it hasn't appreciably warmed in 18 years, but in the 60 years prior to that it only warmed by one centigrade degree, despite all the inflammations of the Second World War and lesser conflicts and decades of nuclear testing, stupefying increases in carbon emissions, through a vast proliferation of automobiles and decades of heavy but in energy terms, crude, economic growth in China and among many other numerous nationalities.  So global warming didn't just "stall," or even stop, it hasn't started, at least not in centuries.

Farewell to the man who invented 'climate change'.  A very odd thing happened last weekend.  The death was announced of the man who, in the past 40 years, has arguably been more influential on global politics than any other single individual.  Yet the world scarcely noticed.  Had it not been for this man, we would not last week have seen 150 heads of government joining 40,000 delegates in Paris for that mammoth climate conference:  the 21st such get-together since, in 1992, he masterminded the Rio "Earth Summit", the largest political gathering in history.  Yet few people even know his name.

10 reasons why we shouldn't worry about 'man-made' global warming.  For 30 years we have been told how, thanks to the dramatic rise in CO2, temperatures have been soaring to unprecedented levels.  This is causing polar ice to melt, sea-levels to rise and has brought a dangerous increase in "extreme weather events", such as hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts and floods. [...] In fact, in more recent years scarcely a single point in this "consensus" theory has not been questioned by a growing array of independent experts, including some of the most eminent scientists in the world.

Paris dreaming.  Representatives of 195 nations, including 150 leaders themselves, opened their gathering Monday [11/30/2015] with the goal of signing an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.  They can hardly fail — temperatures began leveling off nearly two decades ago. [...] Just as the environmentalists are poised to cheer the global warming deal, NASA scientists announced that the overall temperature of Antarctica has been falling since 2009 and glacial ice and sea ice in the South Pole region has been growing thicker.  European researchers have gone off-message with a scientific computer model demonstrating that Earth is likely soon to enter a "mini-ice age" between 2030 and 2040, owing to a decline in solar activity.

The Paris Trap.  President Obama may be walking into a trap of his own side's devising as he departs for the latest climate action summit in Paris.  If Republicans can suppress their innate ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the summit's outcome could hand the GOP an incredibly potent election-year weapon. [...] While a slight majority of Americans might tell a pollster they believe in climate change and can be persuaded to make some sort of sacrifice for it, the median amount they say they are willing to pay to stave off global warming is under $50.  Even someone lacking proficiency in demagoguery could make this a winning issue.

Leaders of warming Earth meet in Paris to cut emissions.  Addressing the twin threats of global warming and extremist violence, 151 world leaders kicked off two weeks of high-stakes climate talks outside Paris on Monday [11/30/2015], saying that by striking an ambitious deal to cut emissions that are warming the planet they can show terrorists what countries can do when they stand together.

The Editor says...
[1] The earth isn't warming, as far as almost anyone can tell.  The long-term average temperature is climbing so gradually that a century's worth of warming would be barely perceptible if it all happened in the next five minutes.  [2] Nobody is going to reduce "emissions" except by impeding industrial progress and making millions of people miserable.  [3] Standing together is a far cry from working together or fighting together.  [4] The Paris meeting is a series of "high-stakes climate talks" only because it is a contest to see who will take control of the entire world's economy and which third-world countries will get the money that's siphoned off the world's major producers.  The earth is in no danger from (almost entirely) natural climate change.  On the other hand, Islamic terrorist violence is a real and immediate threat.

The Burden of Proof on Climate Change.  The burden of proof for Anthropogenic Climate Change falls on alarmists.  Climate Change has been ongoing for millions of years — long before humans existed on this planet.  Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin, and not anthropogenic.  There is no reason to believe that these natural causes have suddenly stopped; for example, volcanic eruptions, various types of solar influences, and (internal) atmosphere-ocean oscillations all continue today.

Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming.  The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate.  There is no survey or study showing "consensus" on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary.  Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons.  Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields.  Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines.  Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source.  It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt.  Finally, climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased.  Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.

Top 10 Global Warming Lies.  It's not unusual for the environmental Left to make false assertions to attract media attention and raise money.  But a recent mailer from the Environmental Defense Fund "may have set a new low," writes Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James M. Taylor in [a] 12-page response to EDF. [...] Taylor's response addresses 10 false claims made by EDF, from the alleged impact of global warming on bat populations, infectious diseases, and national security to the mailer's dire warnings about rising sea levels and shrinking glaciers.

The Democrats' Boutique Issues.  When Hillary Clinton announced her opposition to the Keystone pipeline from Canada, she said climate change was the reason.  In the first Democratic presidential debate (CNN), Martin O'Malley listed the greatest national security threats to America as nuclear Iran, ISIS, and "climate change, of course."  And in the second Democratic debate (CBS) — it was the day after the Paris terrorist attacks — Bernie Sanders insisted climate change "is directly related to the growth of terrorism."  These comments were disingenuous (Clinton), exaggerated (O'Malley), and absurd (Sanders).  But there was another problem, the issue of global warming itself.  In polls, voters list it as one of their lowest priorities, even while paying lip service to it as a serious matter.  Yet President Obama and Democrats can't stop talking about it.

Kids don't learn about civics and representative government in school any more, but they do know about lawsuits.
US kids' lawsuit over climate change gathers steam.  A lawsuit over climate change filed by 21 young Americans has gained the attention of the fossil fuel industry, which is joining the US government to oppose the kids' demands for sharper pollution cuts.  The plaintiffs, aged eight to 19, include the granddaughter of renowned climate scientist James Hansen, formerly of NASA and a well-known advocate of reducing the greenhouse gases that are causing the planet to heat up.

The Editor says...
[#1] Greenhouse gases are not pollutants, and the planet is only heating and cooling at imperceptible rates.  [#2] If the rest of the "kids" have parents and grandparents who are left-wing climate activists, then it's obvious the kids are being used as surrogates and pawns for emotional leverage.  After all, what eight-year-old files a lawsuit on his own?  TV news shows are much more susceptible to a story about children than a story about old men trying to solve a problem we don't have.

Obama: Climate Change Summit In Paris A Message To Terrorists.  President Obama is sending a clear message to the world that he will travel to the climate change summit in Paris next week, describing the journey as an important message to Islamic State terrorists. [...] Obama has repeatedly emphasized the damaging effect that climate change has on national security in preparation for the summit.  During a Coast Guard graduation speech in May, Obama emphasized that the recruits would be facing the threat [of] global warming.

Climate Change and the Upcoming Meeting of the (Socialist) Minds in Paris.  The Paris meeting, under the banner of the United Nations, is intended to effect agreement on further reducing greenhouse gas emissions, most prominently CO2.  President Obama's pledge for the U.S. is a reduction to about 28% less than that produced in 2005, by the year 2025.  That's a tall order and will, in monetary terms, cost about $73 billion per year to attempt as reported in a piece by The Daly Caller.  That's on top of the already $26 billion per year impacting the U.S. economy to meet current greenhouse gas emission standards.  All of that money and effort, and the additional cost (loss) of tens of thousands of jobs are expected to reduce global temperatures by — get ready — a whopping .02 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 as reported in a research piece by the Cato Institute.

Gambling the World Economy on Climate.  The United Nations climate conference in Paris starting Nov. 30 will get under way when most minds in the French capital will still understandably be on the recent terror attacks.  But for many of the 40,000 attendees, the goal is to ensure that climate change stays on the global economic agenda for the next 15 years.  The Paris conference is the culmination of many such gatherings and is expected to produce agreements on combating climate change.  President Obama and the dozens of other world leaders planning to be in Paris should think carefully about the economic impact — in particular the staggering costs — of the measures they are contemplating.

Tropical Evaporative Cooling.  [Scroll down]  Note how the rainfall amounts clearly delineate the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) that runs along and generally just above the Equator.  As the name implies, the winds of both the northern and southern tropics converge near the equator.  Where the winds meet there is intense rainfall, along with the deep thunderstorm convection that drives the global atmospheric circulation.  It is interesting to see the waves of precipitation wash over places like India.  It's like the earth breathing — in the summer when India gets hot, the hot air rises.  When the air rises, it draws in the moist air from off of the Indian Ocean, which pours down as the monsoon rain.

Back to Basics Part 1 — What is Global Warming?  The term "global warming" has come to mean the warming of our planet Earth (the surface, the lower atmosphere, and the oceans to depth) that has been caused by, and will be further enhanced by, the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases.  No one bothers calling it man-made global warming or anthropogenic global warming or human-induced global warming anymore.  Whenever a news report or article uses the term global warming, everyone now assumes they're talking about the hypothetical man-made kind of warming.  There are many possible reasons why global warming has occurred over the past few decades, some of which are natural, but the primary focus of research has been on the consequences of increased emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that result from the burning of fossil fuels.

Back to Basics Part 2 — What is Climate Change?  Were you aware that the IPCC and other government agencies used climate change for both natural and human-induced variabilityoften without identifying which they're discussing?  Did you assume they were discussing the man-made type, when in fact they may have been referring to natural variability?  Some persons might believe the IPCC and other governmental agencies are purposely being vague, with hope that most readers will assume they're discussing the man-made kind, when in reality those scientists still can't differentiate between natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Terrorism, not Climate Change, Kills People.  [Scroll down]  Mrs. Clinton is not alone, however.  All of the Democrats running for president, plus former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, want to treat changes in the weather as something to be addressed through new treaties, international agreements and global tax schemes.  This campaign has taken precedence over defeating international terrorism.  At the Democratic Party debate this past weekend, Sanders claimed that "Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism and if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops and you're going to see all kinds of international conflict"

People Who Say Climate Change Is Worse Than Terrorism Are Dangerous Liars.  [T]here is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest that climate change is responsible for the Syrian refugee crisis, let alone for ISIS terrorism.  In fact there is absolute no credible evidence that "climate change" — in the "man-made global warming" sense — has caused major harm to anyone, anywhere in the world, ever.  There is however no shortage of credible, verifiable evidence to show that terrorism is causing major harm to lots of people all the time.  Not the as-yet-nameless "children of the future" forever being invoked by climate alarmists.  But actual living, breathing people with names and families and jobs and dreams.

The Audacity of Climate Change.  First, the EPA has just imposed its Clean Power Plan to affect climate change mitigation.  Estimates are that the plan will cost the United States over two trillion dollars in economic growth, without having any impact on climate change.  Second, the United Nations will be hosting a Conference on Climate Change in Paris ("COP21" or "Paris Conference") this month.  Attendees will work on a massive plan to redistribute the world's wealth, in addition to considering plans for international taxation and creation of a court of "climate justice."  Either the Clean Power Plan or the Paris Agreement has the power to hobble our economy.  If both are put into play, the economic effect will be disastrous.  NOAA's study and its subsequent change to the historic temperature record also go to the very essence of scientific integrity.

Here are five reasons why it is completely reasonable to conclude that man-made climate change is [nonsense].  [#1]  Temperature is not static:  local temperature continuously changes during the day, it varies according to whether you are in the sun or shade, and depending on which side of the street you are on. [...] [G]lobal temperature based on land-based readings is a construct, and alarmists pick and choose data to fit their agenda.  The closest thing to taking the earth's temperature globally is via satellites, and this has been going on for a few decades an it shows no warming [in] the last 18 years.

China's CO2 Charade Shows Who The Real Climate Deniers Are.  China apparently has been burning 17% more coal annually than it has claimed over the past 15 years.  And as a result, it's been emitting a billion tons more CO2 a year than it had admitted.  The New York Times points out that this difference alone is equal to what Germany's entire economy produces each year from burning fossil fuels.  In other words, if Germany shut down its entire economy, it wouldn't compensate for China's "error."  Anyone who's ever seen photos [...] of Chinese cities choked in smog could have guessed that they are probably not pursuing "clean energy" at the pace they claim.  But the fact that this vast undercount went on so long only points to a much larger problem with the entire climate change agenda.

Our Last Chance — What, Another One? — To Stop Global Warming.  Activists are warning that the upcoming United Nations climate conference is the last chance to save the world.  Fair enough.  So if no deal is reached at the meeting, can we please stop hearing about global warming?

As scientists worry about warming world, US public doesn't.  Most Americans know the climate is changing, but they say they are just not that worried about it, according to a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The Editor says...
Maybe the general public isn't worried because the changes are imperceptibly slow, and therefore not a problem.

Bill Gates says that capitalism cannot save us from climate change.  The world's richest man, Bill Gates, has said that the private sector is too selfish and inefficient to produce effective energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

Bill Gates: Only Socialism Can Save Us From Climate Change.  "Representative democracy" has failed; the private sector is "inept"; and only bigger government — led by China and the US — has the power to save the world from climate change.  So says Bill Gates in a dogmatic but somewhat confused interview with The Atlantic in which he simultaneously pours scorn on green tech solutions but insists that more of them are needed — on a scale bigger than the Manhattan Project — if we are to deal successfully with a problem whose nature he admits may well have been exaggerated by environmentalists.

Bill Gates Says Capitalism Can't Save Us from Climate Change.  [Scroll down]  Logical leaps — that greenhouse gases are the primary force behind "global warming," and that man, beast or government can make inroads against such environmental changes — aside, Gates actually goes on to make the case against his own theory, stating that it[']s the regulatory structure that surrounds energy methods development, not necessarily the free market's unwillingness, that keeps alternative fuel sources in the experimental stages.

Climate Change — A Cover for Repealing Capitalism.  The "crisis" it represents gets bigger and scarier with each passing week, and the people who want to save us from it cry out over and over again with more and more claims of how serious this tragic situation is.  The cause has been most recently trumpeted by Naomi Klein in her book and documentary of the same name, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. [...] While Klein wants everyone to think that climate change is her goal, it is clear from her book and documentary that bringing down capitalism and all the evil is stands for is her goal.

French Mathematicians Blast UN's 'Costly & Pointless Crusade' Against Global Warming.  As the United Nations gears up for its next international conference on climate change in Paris next month (COP 21), a scathing white paper released by a society of French mathematicians calls its fight against global warming "absurd" and "a costly and pointless crusade".  "You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human ... history to find [such a] mad obsession," according to a translated summary of the document released in September by the Paris-based Société de Calcul Mathématique SA.  The mathematicians harshly criticized a "crusade [that] has invaded every area of activity and everyone's thinking," noting that "the battle [against] CO2 has become a national priority.

Ted Cruz Destroys Sierra Club President's Global Warming Claims In Senate Hearing.  Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is showing Sierra Club President Aaron Mair to be an ideological hack and global warming alarmist.  At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Cruz subjected him to a withering cross examination.  Mair was reduced to stammering and frequent awkward pauses which he used to receive whispered advice from staff.  He repeatedly referred to the discredited "97 percent of scientists concur" claim, and was unwilling to acknowledge valid scientific data that disproves the claim.

Climate Scientists Apparently Now Brainwashing Themselves With Fear.  [C]limate scientists have made themselves mental messes.  All over a meager 1.4°F increase in global temperatures since 1850, warming that is less than during previous Holocene warm periods.  Of course, you couple that, which they think is apocalyptic, with their prognostications of a 3.6°F increase by 2100 (despite their computer models failing 95% of the time), and they are almost breaking down mentally.

Climate Change: The Facts.  Tirelessly promoted by princes, presidents, actors and activists, "climate change" has become a dominant theme of global politics.  But what's really going on as the "pause" in global warming prepares to enter its third decade?

German Professor: Europe's €5.7 Trillion Climate Policy Is "Very Expensive", "Counter-Productive" And "Does Nothing For Climate".  University of Magdeburg economics professor Joachim Weimann held a presentation in Brandenburg highlighting the shortcomings of Germany's Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) and Europe's climate policy earlier this year.  First Weimann calls the climate issue a debate that is emotionally and ideologically charged, and that the facts are almost always suppressed.  He also believes that the real facts on climate change and energy policy are unpopular among policymakers and that they all too often "deny" them.

Time to Defuse Climate Alarmism.  Some GOP candidates have responded "I am not a scientist" when confronted by questions about climate change (global warming). [...] "I am not a scientist" is unsatisfactory because political candidates should be aware of important issues.  In particular about climate change; where the Democrat Party's response is overturning our entire energy supply system by abandoning our abundant, inexpensive, and geographically distributed fossil fuels of coal, oil, and natural gas.  The U. S. is the most blessed nation on the planet with abundant fossil fuels.  The issue is as follows:  Is global warming from burning fossil fuels sufficiently dangerous to stop its use and replace our vast, inexpensive energy sources with possibly expensive and environmentally challenged solar, wind, ethanol from corn, other biofuels, and biomass (predominately burning wood).  The answer is absolutely not — or not in the least.

81 Major Corporations Sign WH Pledge to Back Global Climate Change Deal.  Eighty-one major corporations with operations in the U.S. — including Google, Facebook, Apple, Coca Cola and General Motors — have taken a White House pledge "to demonstrate their support for action on climate change and the conclusion of a climate change agreement in Paris that takes a strong step forward toward a low-carbon, sustainable future."  Signing the White House's American Business Act on Climate Change Pledge shows a continuing commitment to action preventing global warming and is intended to set an example for other companies to pursue similar policies, according to a statement released by the White House.

Fanatics Want To Draft Americans To Fight This Dumb War.  Al Gore popularized the phrase "fighting global warming" to underscore what he thinks is the seriousness of the matter.  Though profoundly childish, the expression caught on and apparently inspired a Seattle-based writer to lay out in the Atlantic a plan for war.  According to Venkatesh Rao, "solving global warming" is going to be "like mobilizing for war."  And of course, war requires us to give up some things in the name of the effort. [...] No thanks.  We've seen too much corruption in the academic institutions and political bodies that are squawking the loudest and longest about the dangers of CO2 emissions.

Climate Change's Great Legacy: International Wealth Redistribution.  India says it needs $2.5 trillion to meet its energy-and-climate policy goals.  Okay, some of that will come from within India itself, but a big portion, it's clear, will have to come from the US and other rich countries — or it won't happen.  The Philippines says that without major cash influx from rich countries, it won't be able to make any CO2 emission cuts.  This is all good news for those of us who know that increased atmospheric CO2 won't warm things much but will improve plant growth, and hence crop yields, and hence food supplies, around the world.

Paris climate talks starting to look like all carrots, no sticks.  Negotiators have several terms for the way they plan to enforce any deal reached at global climate talks in Paris this December.  "Peer pressure" and "cooperation" are a couple. "Race to the top" is the American buzzword.  What you won't hear mentioned is the word "sanctions."  Or "punishment."  For all their efforts to get 200 governments to commit to the toughest possible cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, climate negotiators have all but given up on creating a way to penalize those who fall short.

Obama Has Given Up.  [Scroll down]  "He's challenging your leadership, Mr. President," Kroft reiterated as though he was trying to snap an addlepated mind out of a hallucination.  "He's challenging your leadership."  "My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we'll get in Paris," the president replied.  Allow that to sink in.  Even if you're of the opinion that the amorphous threat of climate change, which exists forever just over the horizon, is of a greater danger to American national security than a nuclear power engaging in kinetic warfare against American-backed forces in a strategically vital part the world — thus rendering you an unserious person — this answer should disturb you.  If only because it took the president almost seven years to secure this accomplishment.  Following his personal humiliation at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, progress on the left's chief substitute for a national security policy has been halting at best.

Global Warmers Want Just One Thing: Control.  [Scroll down]  So I investigated this call for the use of RICO, or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  It turns out that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., has called for the criminal investigation of people and organizations who are seen as global warming deniers.  The investigation would include lawsuits against the coal and oil industries, certain think tanks and other organizations that question the global warming religion.  By the way, so that Whitehouse and his gang don't appear silly, they've changed their concern from global warming to climate change.  That's stupid in and of itself, for when has the climate not been changing, even before mankind arrived?

Mathematical Models vs. Real-World Data: Which Best Predicts Earth's Climatic Future?  How well are today's climate models able to predict what will happen to earth's climate in the years, decades and centuries to come if the atmosphere's carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration continues to rise as a result of mankind's continued burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil?  In this document this question is broached via a thorough and careful scrutiny of the pertinent scientific literature that has addressed this topic as it pertains to several important climatic phenomena.

India's Climate Change Bill: $2.5 Trillion.  There are high expectations for the next UN climate summit taking place in Paris in late November and early December.  Obama is determined to get a "binding" international treaty to succeed the failed Kyoto Protocol.  One of the major sticking points all along has been the reluctance of developing nations, especially China and India, to commit to significant emissions reductions which would reduce their economic growth.  So China, India, and other nations were exempted from the Kyoto Protocol, and now China is the top emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.

'Largest Science Scandal in U.S. History'.  The plan by climate alarmists to have other scientists imprisoned for their 'global warming' skepticism is backfiring horribly, and the chief alarmist is now facing a House investigation into what has been called "the largest science scandal in US history."

The Pontiff Buys a Bridge.  Climate alarmists have made so many flawed predictions they seem almost over-qualified to be called false prophets.  The latest IPCC report confesses that 111 of 114 climate-model runs predicted greater warming during the 15 years than the subsequent temperature data actually indicates.  Indeed, there is no certainty that any warming whatsoever has occurred.  What of the millions of "climate refugees" who, by now, were confidently predicted to be on the march in quest of new, dry homes?  What of the predicted sea-level rise, the one whose projected magnitude diminishes with every latest IPCC report?  The dishonesty of the false prophets seems not far removed from witnesses lying in court.

All Those Climate Change Pledges Are A Farce, New York Times Says.  After decades spent playing up the dangers of a warming planet, the New York Times admits that even if every country lived up to their current carbon reduction pledges, it won't make any difference. [...] Of course, it's also possible that the climate scientists are wrong, both about future warming and about the harm it will cause, and we don't need to worry about CO2 at all.  Either way, all those pledges to cut carbon emissions would be pointless.  Feel-good policies that do nothing but massively raise costs and kill jobs aren't something to be celebrated.

China Visit Underlines Climate Change's Dodgy Value.  President Obama gave China's visiting leader Xi Jinping a 21-gun salute, a state dinner and much attention over — are you ready? — global warming.  It's a pathetic diversion, given the major issues to address.

Climate Change Ideology Destroyed by Two Graphs.  Weather expert Joe Bastardi has two graphs he would like to show the Pope, who has been concerning himself not with our souls but with reducing harmless CO2 emissions in accordance with leftist ideology. [...] But even if he could get Pope Francis to look at the graphs, it wouldn't do any good.  Climate change is not about improving the human condition, or even improving the climate.  It is about imposing collectivism on behalf of an authoritarian oligarchy.

German Physicists: Late 20th Century Warming "Nothing Unusual".  As regular readers know, a battle over global warming hysteria is raging among scientists, and the alarmists are consistently getting the worst of it.  German scientists Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Alexander Hempelmann and Carl Otto Weiss have published two influential studies in the European Geophysical Union journal.  The first, published in 2013, examined the past 250 years of climate history.  The second, published earlier this year, extended the research through the past 2,500 years.

Public Places Global Warming Concerns Dead Last.  Alarmists pushing the UN's anti-carbon climate change agenda claim we are already "Halfway to Hell," i.e., the arbitrary 2-degrees C above pre-industrial global temperatures that, supposedly will render life impossible.  Voters worldwide, apparently, are not buying the hype, despite (or, perhaps, because of) the unceasing propaganda from presidents, prime ministers, legislators, media opinionators, celebrities, and other anointed "experts."  The 2-degree totem is the invention of Professor William Nordhaus (a Yale economist, not a scientist) that has been transformed from an "intuition" (as Nordhaus called it in 1975) into a dogma by the global warming true believers and globalist schemers.  In all the rants and jeremiads against rising levels of carbon dioxide (a natural gas essential to life) the bottom line relentlessly emphasized by the political classes is that unless humankind limits its CO2-producing activities, global temperatures will hit that dreaded 2 degree mark — and then we'll all descend, ineluctably, into the fiery abyss.  We are already halfway there, so we have only one more degree to go, they warn, before Hades is upon us.

Will 2016 Be A Climate Hysteria Election?  Will the climate campaign ever reach its "sell-by" date?  Probably not:  the deep need for belief in catastrophism — and the expansion of political power that is always deemed necessary to "solve" the problem — will persist even if we run out of witches to drown.  Perhaps the most damaging trope of climate catastrophism is that "we only have X years left" before it will be too late.  James Hansen said it was 2010.  Al Gore thought the Arctic would be ice-free by last year.  I'm pretty sure if I look I can find someone who said that Obama was our last hope.

An inconvenient truth: 'Climate change industry' now a $1.5 trillion global business.  The plaintive calls about global warming and loss of polar bear habitats, the stern warnings about rising seas and flooded coastlines -- this is what the public hears about.  Then there's this pesky, inconvenient truth they don't hear about:  $1.5 trillion.  "Interest in climate change is becoming an increasingly powerful economic driver, so much so that some see it as an industry in itself whose growth is driven in large part by policymaking, notes Don Jergler, an analyst for Insurance Journal, an industry publication[.]

Global Warming: A $1.5 Trillion Industry.  The Climate Change Business Journal has calculated that global warming is now a $1.5 trillion a year industry. [...] What is striking about the global warming industry is that its growth is driven more or less entirely by "policymaking," i.e., government mandates and other policies.  This is why "green" businesses contribute so lavishly to the political campaigns of politicians who drink the global warming Kool-aid.

Is Climate Change Now Its Own Industry?  Interest in climate change is becoming an increasingly powerful economic driver, so much so that some see it as an industry in itself whose growth is driven in large part by policymaking.  The $1.5 trillion global "climate change industry" grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008, slowing to between 4 and 6 percent following the recession with the exception of 2011's inexplicable 15 percent growth, according to Climate Change Business Journal.

World's Top Climate Experts Predicted : "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms".  Australia's climate 'experts' the CSIRO, predicted the same demise of snow back in 2003.  When will they admit they got it wrong?  When will the IPCC admit they got it wrong?  When will Dr David "Children won't know what snow is" Viner, admit he was wrong?  The answer:  they will never admit they got it wrong, because their reputations are at steak. [sic]

You might be a liberal if ... you're delusional.  You may be a liberal if you dismiss the coldest, snowiest winter on record as "weather," but truly believe that two days with temperatures over 90 degrees represent "climate change."

Let's Worry about a Real Threat.  The Obama administration is catering to Democrat constituent groups — the global warming crowd and wealthy environmental foundations.  The sales pitch of these organizations is give them money now, to stop global warming, and future generations will rewarded with a better climate in 100 years.  A lot of people who don't have the excuse of dementia fall for this.  The scientific credibility of the global warming has fallen to near absolute zero in the face of the 18-year failure of the Earth to warm.  The science behind global warming may have collapsed, but the beneficiaries of government subsidies — scientists and crony capitalist developers of renewable power — are still promoting the theory that is their golden egg-laying goose.

On Global Warming: Follow the Money.  There is a real irony in the Left's repeated insinuation that climate realists must be funded, somehow, by the oil industry.  In truth, there is plenty of money being distributed to climate scientists, but just about all of it comes from governments, and all government money goes to alarmists who promote government power.

Climate Compulsions.  Do people suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) worry a lot about global warming/climate change?  We don't have to speculate because Mr. M.K. Jones took a survey of OCD patients and wrote it up for the Australia New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry.  He discovered that 28% of OCD sufferers do indeed obsess about climate change.  Their biggest worry is wasting energy.  They also worried about their pets dying of thirst.  What about the reverse question?  Do people who worry a lot about climate change in some way have OCD, or some similar cognitive problem, probably not rising to the level of needing psychiatric treatment, but perhaps such people are outliers along some axis of normal mental function?

The Pope joins the EU in a sad world of make-believe.  What has a Papal Encyclical calling on the world to end its use of fossil fuels and to pray to God for the success of the global "climate summit" in December got in common with the Greek euro crisis, the ominous rift between the West and Russia, and the shambles Europe is making over the desperation of African and Syrian refugees to find safety this side of the Mediterranean?  They are all different aspects of the two greatest acts of political make-believe of our time, so all-pervasive that it is hard for us to grasp just how much effect they are having on all our lives.  When future historians come to look back on our age, few things will puzzle them more than the extent to which our politics became so dominated and bedevilled by two belief-systems, each based on an obsessive attempt to force into being an immensely complicated political construct which defied economic, psychological and scientific reality.

Climate Change: Where is the Science?  In 1999 they said that warming would wipe out the Great Barrier Reef.  In 2000 they said that Britain would no longer see snow during winter.  In 2001 they predicted starvation from failing grain crops in India.  From 2003 to 2005 they concluded that the drought then occurring in Australia would be permanent and Sydney dwellers would have nothing to drink.  In 2006 they predicted unprecedented severe cyclones and hurricanes.  In 2008 they said that by 2013 there would be no more arctic ice cap; that we would be swimming with the otters at the North Pole.  None of these predictions have come to pass.

Inhofe: Climate change fight really about global control.  Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told a conference of global warming skeptics Thursday that the fight against climate change is really about global control with little accountability.  Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and an outspoken climate skeptic, said he agreed with former French President Jacques Chirac's statement that global warming "is the first component of authentic global governance."  "The United Nations is the reason that this all came along.  We all know that," Inhofe told attendees at a conference organized by the Heartland Institute, the top climate skeptic think tank.

Global Warming: The Theory that Predicts Nothing and Explains Everything.  A lot of us having been pointing out one of the big problems with the global warming theory: a long plateau in global temperatures since about 1998.  Most significantly, this leveling off was not predicted by the theory, and observed temperatures have been below the lowest end of the range predicted by all of the computerized climate models.  So what to do if your theory doesn't fit the data?  Why, change the data, of course!  Hence a blockbuster new report:  a new analysis of temperature data since 1998 "adjusts" the numbers and magically finds that there was no plateau after all.  The warming just continued.

Scientists Are Coming Up With 'Last Ditch' Remedies for Climate Change.  [Scroll down]  Other ideas to cool the planet have scientists worried about unintended consequences.  There are proposals, untested at scale and with uncertain costs, to block the sun's rays with airborne particles or seed the oceans with carbon-absorbing iron.  That they're even being considered reveals both frustration over government inaction and skepticism that policy alone will solve the problem. [...] Researchers are seeking to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial times.

The Editor says...
The "researchers," whoever they are, apparently think they know exactly the right temperature for the Earth, and they are determined to draw the line right there.

Poll: Voters unwilling to pay to fight global warming.  A poll by Rasmussen Reports reveals that "voters still aren't ready to pay much, if anything, to fight global warming."  According to the results, "41% of likely U.S. voters say they are willing to pay nothing more in higher taxes and utility costs annually to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming."

Global warming: When science meets science fiction.  One of the most effective ways to sell your political agenda is to back up your concerns with factual information.  That info may be statistical or scientific.  In the absence of solid facts, the next most effective method often seems to be to instill fear.  If you don't support "agenda X" there will be dire consequences.  In the case of global warming, the facts don't support the agenda.  Temperatures have not increased in 18 years.  The 1930s actually have the hottest years on record.  Why then do we keep reading headlines that global warming is here and Henny Penny the sky is falling?  Perhaps it is because those pushing this agenda keep changing the so-called facts.

Leaving the Church of Environmentalism.  [Alan] Carlin went from being a dedicated environmentalist, based on its initial philosophy of conservation, to an observer of the movement that was taken over and distorted to advocate falsehoods about global warming and a transition from fossil-fuels to "clean energy" meaning wind, solar and bio-fuels.  As an economist he understood how absurd it was to suggest rejecting fossil-fuels, the key element of modern industry and society.  "The climate alarmists," says Carlin, "have now been making their apocalyptic predictions for almost thirty years and it is now possible to compare their predictions with actual physical observations."  Suffice to say all the predictions of a significantly higher temperature — the warming — have been wrong.  In fact, the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle since 1998 and shows no indication of warming[.]  Predictions about the North and South Poles melting, a major rise in ocean levels, increased hurricanes and other climate events have been wrong along with countless other climate-related apocalyptic predictions.

22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths.  [#1] The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air:  how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature?  [#2] 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable.  How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?  [#4] The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC.  [#17] The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse.  Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly.

25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming 'Tipping Point'.  Would you believe it was eight years ago today that the United Nations predicted we only had "as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2[°]C or more."  This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.  To celebrate more than two decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation presents this list of some of the "greatest" predictions made by scientists, activists and politicians — most of which we've now passed.

AstroPhysicist TKOs Portland, OR Warmists.  Thank you for the opportunity to once again comment on your Climate Action Plan that is designed to combat Global Warming and to stabilize our local climate, so that presumably we never get too warm or too cold, never experience another destructive Columbus Day storm, and get uniformly good mountain snow every winter to keep the ski resorts happy and water available throughout the year.  In short, your goal seems to be to create a sort of Shangri-La where people live happily ever after in a perfect climate, and in perfect harmony, since all social injustices have been corrected at the same time.  Such Utopian visions usually die quickly when confronted with reality.  But I notice that your report has no real measures of success and accountability.  You seem content with "reducing carbon" as a substitute for actual measures of taming our climate.  That would suggest that you are not at all serious about this endeavor and just use carbon as an excuse to do what you want to do without any accountability.

Obama: They Have DROUGHTS In California?  Global-warming belief is all about subjecting your five senses to intellects vaster, cooler, and less sympathetic.  Global-warming orthodoxy insists that you not be fooled by one-off events like a grueling and seemingly endless winter, record growth in polar ice caps, or a boatload of global-warming experts getting shipwrecked in the ice in the height of summertime.  But now, a steep one-year drop in California precipitation — a phenomenon far older than California itself — is enough to convince the president of the United States that he's finally found his issue.

Francis Is Out of His Element.  Science is critical to understanding why and how our climate changes — an issue, contrary to popular belief, that's still a matter of open debate.  However, science provides no insight into how individuals or governments ought to respond to any particular threats or benefits possibly arising from climate change.

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures.  Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed "its hottest March since records began in 1880".  This year, according to "US government scientists", already bids to outrank 2014 as "the hottest ever".  The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world's scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA's Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).  But here there is a puzzle.  These temperature records are not the only ones with official status.  The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites.  And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture.  Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as "the hottest year ever".

Greens against the poor.  Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and the whole gang of Democratic leaders claim that one of their highest priorities is to lift up the middle class and reduce the income gap between rich and poor.  That goal collides with what they admit is their very highest priority:  stopping climate change.  Their agenda is driven by the millionaire and billionaire Democratic donors who make the party possible.  But the agenda also involves making energy, home heating, transportation and just about everything else less efficient and more expensive to the middle class and poor.  The people who lose their jobs when the climate-change Stalinists prevail are the people at the bottom and the middle of the income ladder.  The billionaire club members don't seem to mind this collateral damage.

Scientists Say New Study Is A 'Death Blow' To Global Warming Hysteria.  A study by scientists at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought.  Why is this big news?  It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.  What do aerosols have to do with anything?  Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires.  There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog.  Aerosols tend to reflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions.

Will Global Warming Cause Prostitution?  Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee has introduced a resolution in the House that is based on the premise that "women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change." [...] Does such extremism make any sense whatsoever?  Amid the hoopla, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that global warming theory argues that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the Earth's average temperature of 1 degree C.  Alarmists rely on hypothetical positive feedbacks (the most important of which, an alleged increase in water vapor, has already been disproved) to magnify that 1 degree into 3 degrees.  Actually, the feedbacks are likely negative, but put that to the side for a moment.  The range of change we are talking about — 1 to 3 degrees Celsius — is small in relation to temperature variations that already exists.

By Hook and By Crook, You Are Going to Pay for Climate Change.  It's the first day of spring and we are having snow again.  Not much, a couple of inches, just enough to prove that March always goes out like a lion.  Undeterred, global progressives, intent on sending us into the stone age of technology, are forcing their agenda of redistributive taxation of man-made global warming/climate change on everyone.

The myth of 'settled science' : When the left shuts down debate, it's time for skepticism.  National Geographic's latest cover story has generated lots of attention because it sneers at those close-minded Americans — mostly conservatives, of course — who do not accept scientific "facts."  Only 40 percent of Americans (according to Pew Research Center) "accept that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming," and the magazine finds it "dispiriting" that so many "reasonable people doubt science."  National Geographic compares global warming doubters to those disbelieve NASA's moon landing and those who think water fluoridation is an evil plot.  How could so many dismiss "established science?"  Well, here's one reason:  The public has come to distrust government warnings and the scientific experts; they are often wrong.

Global warming is happening Faster: Climate change is 'set to speed up to rates not seen for 1,000 years', warn scientists.  New evidence suggests the rate at which temperatures are rising in the northern hemisphere could be 0.25°C per decade by 2020 -- a level not seen for at least 1,000 years. [...] The analysis, based on a combination of data from more than two dozen climate simulation models from around the world, looked at the rate of change in 40-year long time spans.

The Editor says...
(1) This isn't the first time we've seen fearmongering based on computer models which can be made to show anything the programmers want.  (2) Obviously there were people all over the world who survived the weather 1,000 years ago, with only 11th-century technology available to them, so we should have no trouble with gradual temperature changes.  (3) The rate of change, over which this article aims to generate such panic, is still only 2½° per century — hardly an emergency.

Hottest Year Ever Claims Are Propaganda, Not Science.  NOAA and NASA will both announce this month that 2014 was the hottest year ever. These claims are absurd, and based on intentional deception.  The biggest problem is that they are ignoring the most accurate data sets, which come from satellites and show that 2014 was nowhere near as warm as several other years.

White House: Don't Mention Temperature When Discussing Global Warming.  First rule about global warming:  don't talk global warming.  The White House quietly released a draft guidance telling federal agencies to consider the impact more carbon dioxide emissions will have on the environment, but only in terms of how much more carbon dioxide will be emitted.  When conducting environmental impact analyses on rules and projects, federal agencies should only talk about carbon dioxide emissions increases — not things like potential increases in temperature, precipitation, storm intensity and other environmental impacts that scientists warn about.

Hidden Heat.  Rational people abandon ideas when facts prove them wrong, as per John Maynard Keynes, who said, "When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do, sir?"  Unfortunately for warmers, they cannot do that because they would have to abandon their whole Weltanschauung.  If they abandoned belief in global warming, their lives would become shallow and meaningless.  So to avoid the mental distress of cognitive dissonance, warmers have to believe that the absence of the heat that their climate models have predicted is due to that heat being "hidden".  The high priests of the warmers have told their faithful that the hidden heat is in the deep oceans.  It is so well hidden that it can't be measured properly.  Furthermore, the priests contend that the lack of detected temperature rise means that our measuring system is faulty and the way we look at the world is wrong.

Nothing but the Truth.  [Scroll down]  Only a propagandist could get away with saying that death by something as disputed as global warming or as unpredictable as climate change places us in greater peril and thus requires more of our resources and attention, than death by a keffiyeh-covered, sword-wielding, AK47-shooting, zealot screaming Allahu Akhbar with a resume of decapitation, slaughter, rape, crucifixion, and torching others to death.  As guardians of the truth, each and every one of us is obligated to call out the propagandists for their lies and stand between them and society's most gullible.

Inside the Global Warming Scandal.  These warmists have systematically altered historic temperature records, so that the temperatures they report today for past eras are not the same as what were measured, say, 70 or 80 years ago.  The effect of these adjustments is strikingly consistent:  they almost always make the past look cooler than it was measured at the time, so that the present looks warmer by comparison.  The opposite — an adjustment that results in reporting a historic temperature higher than what was published contemporaneously — never, or almost never, happens.  These adjustments may or may not be explained; sometimes, they are kept quiet until someone stumbles across the original data and points out a discrepancy.

Report: Temperature Data Being Faked to Show Global Warming.  A British journalist is questioning the method used to by scientists to calculate the earth's climate change, calling it "one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time."  Christopher Booker writes for Britain's The Telegraph that climate data from stations in South America have been adjusted since the 1950s to give the impression that the earth's temperature is rising more than the original data showed.

Global Warming: So Dishonest It Makes Enron Look Like a Paragon of Integrity.  "Fiddling temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever," says Christopher Booker, not pulling his punches.  And I think he's right not to do so.  If — as Booker, myself, and few others suspect — the guardians of the world's land-based temperature records have been adjusting the raw data in order to exaggerate "global warming" then this is indeed a crime against the scientific method unparalleled in history.

Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science.  The perception that one political group is less science-savvy than another is predominately driven by the unwillingness of many conservatives to accept global-warming alarmism and the policies purportedly meant to mitigate it.  But when it comes to climate change, volumes could be written about the ill-conceived, unscientific, over-the-top predictions made by activists and politicians.  We could start with our own Malthusian Science Czar, who once predicted that climate change would cause the deaths of a billion people by 2020 and that sea levels would rise by 13 feet.

Climate change is changing.  Science sans politics should be self-correcting.  However, in our real world of eternal conflict, scientists have a difficult time rising to the level of self-correction without anger or shame.  When we deal with Marxists as a class, further rigidities enter into consideration.  They treat everything, including science, as a matter of power relations — that is, as a matter of politics.  Therefore, we have a conundrum when leftists are in charge.  How can we get better accuracy in the models that are tuned by people who cannot put aside the need to control everything and everyone?

Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures.  In the three decades I've been in the climate research business, it's been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement.  I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the U.N.'s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change.  (The IPCC wasn't formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat, that was a given.)  I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.

Global Warming So Bad Great Lakes Need Another Icebreaker.  Earlier this month came much blubbering about 2014 being the warmest year in history. We set the record straight on that but, well, the alarmists won't give up.  They can't help themselves. They would make the same claims if 2014 had been the coldest year on record.  Remember, it's not global warming anymore.  It's climate change.  The new name allows the alarmists great latitude in their claims.  No matter which way the thermometer moves, no matter how much it snows or doesn't snow, or rains or doesn't rain, they will say that man's burning of fossil fuel is causing the climate to change.

Why Is This Man Smiling?  Climate change is no hoax.  It's a tautology.

Majority of Senate says climate change is human-driven, not a hoax.  Most U.S. senators now agree on two things about climate change: That it is driven by humans, and that it is not a hoax.  Getting to that point during a series of votes on amendments for Keystone XL pipeline legislation was tortuous for Democrats and Republicans alike.  "I'm not sure that there were any clear expectations, but I think the way the day transpired was productive but it was also fascinating," Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, told reporters.  "We made good progress today and we were pretty pleased there is an emerging bipartisan group of people who believe climate change is real, is caused by humans and is solvable."

NASA climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right.  The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 percent sure this was true.  In a press release on Friday [1/16/2015], Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed '2014 was the warmest year on record'.  The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS's analysis — based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide — is subject to a margin of error.  Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

NASA Facing The Heat For Hottest Year Lie.  With great fanfare NASA announced that 2014 was the hottest year on record.  The part of the story they didn't mention is they are only 38% sure it was the hottest on record.  The other thing they didn't mention is that surface temperatures were used rather than satellite data and part of their data used estimated temperatures.  Per the UK Daily Mail, "the claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS's [NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies] analysis — based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide — is subject to a margin of error.  NASA admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Was 2014 Really the Warmest Year Ever?  The New York Times features one of the most misleading headlines ever: "2014 Was the Warmest Year Ever Recorded on Earth."  The first paragraph drives the hysteria home: [...] It would be hard to pack more misinformation into a single sentence.  First, the Times headline, and countless others like it, convey the impression that 2014 was the hottest year ever!  But note the paper's reference to "recorded history."  If you keep reading, you see that "recorded history" goes back only to 1880.  But in 1880, the Little Ice Age had just ended, and the Earth was beginning to warm after several hundred years in the deep freeze.  So, yes, temperatures are a little warmer now than they were then — happily.  Indeed, the Earth may still be recovering to more average temperature levels after the Little Ice Age.

High Crimes and Climate Grifters.  Environmentalists start off with several thoroughly incorrect beliefs that are not supported by science.  The first is that climate change has anything to do with human activity such as carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gases."  But the Earth is not a greenhouse.  It is always in the process of absorbing and discharging heat via the atmosphere and the oceans.

Liberalism in Ruins.  [Scroll down]  Global warming proved a near secular religion that filled a deep psychological longing for some sort of transcendent meaning among mostly secular Western grandees.  In reality, the global-warming creed had scant effect on the lifestyles of the high priests who promulgated it.  Al Gore did not cut back on his jet-fueled and lucrative proselytizing.  Obama did not become the first president who, on principle, traveled with a reduced and green entourage.  Solyndra did not run a model transparent company as proof of the nobility of the cause.  As in the case of illegal immigration, the losers from the global-warming fad are the working and middle classes, who do not have the capital to be unharmed by the restrictions on cheap, carbon-based fuels.

Climate Change and the Course of Global History: A Rough Journey.  Let us look back in the world's history:  for example, between roughly 900 AD and 1350 AD the temperatures were much higher than now.  And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. [...] The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through "cap and trade" and other tax schemes for the government's benefit.

A Brief History of Ice Ages and Warming.  Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed the "Little Ice Age."  This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, and a drier climate.  The decline in global temperatures was a modest ½°C, but the effects of this global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes. The Little Ice Age has been blamed for a host of human suffering including crop failures like the "Irish Potato Famine" and the demise of the medieval Viking colonies in Greenland.  Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called "Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350.

Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D..  Until the early to mid 2000s, global temperatures were more than a degree Fahrenheit warmer when compared to the overall 20th Century mean.  From August of 2007 through February of 2008, the Earth's mean reading dropped to near the 200-year average temperature of 57 degrees.  Since that time, the mean reading has been fluctuating.  But, the recently expired winter of 2013-14 was the coldest and snowiest in modern times in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, including the U.S., Canada and Japan.

Foregone Conclusions of Global Warming.  Seems that any weather, warm or cold, wet or dry, storms or lack of, points to the foregone conclusion of global warming, just as every single person in Iraq made it to the polls on election day and voted to reelect Saddam.  Blame it on the polar vortex, according to climate scientists.  Warming oceans and melting ice are weakening the vortex, causing colder, snowier winters.  Huh?  This year has given us, "The earliest ice on some of the Great Lakes in at least 40 years."  Arctic ice is decreasing as Antarctic ice is increasing, meaning a shift, not a net loss.  How does one reasonably draw conclusions from conflicting and contradictory data?  Unless the conclusions are foregone and data is simply window dressing.

Anthropogenic Global Warming and the Scientific Method.  [Scroll down]  Initially, its proponents engaged in a search for supporting evidence:  Elevated average annual temperatures, local glacial retreats, elevated-temperature indicators in proxy systems such as tree-ring records, measurable coincident increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and so on — a search for white swans.  But these efforts ignored, and failed even to seek, either any alternative explanations or evidence that would have ruled the hypothesis out.  AGW has failed the predictions test again and again; any true scientific hypothesis with so poor an evidence-based evaluation record would have been scrapped by now.  Instead, its proponents elevated it to the status of a theory and, ignoring the fact that climate changes continually, renamed it "climate change."  No other potential causes of AGW have ever been investigated and ruled out.

A Suicidal Collapse of Western Civilization?  The ongoing economic suicide of Europe is based on a faulty understanding of the climate issue by most Western politicians and on their extreme policy response, based on emotion rather than logic and science.  The major European economies have reacted irrationally to contrived, unjustified fear of imagined global-warming disasters[.]  Perhaps I should explain that the climate has not been warming for the past 18 years — and even if it had been warming, it would be no disaster.  The EU wants to cut emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, a natural plant-fertilizer, by 40% within 15 years — by 2030.  This insane drive to replace energy sources from fossil fuels that release plant-friendly CO2 into the atmosphere has led to greatly increased costs of energy.  As is well understood, such actions not only hurt economic growth, but they increase poverty levels and therefore threaten the social fabric of these nations.

'Climate Change' in the Land of Gruber/Obama.  No one really knows if "climate change" exists or, if it does, whether its danger is remotely worth the money to correct it, although we do know that "global warming" has not occurred for eighteen years and counting and there is, if anything, global cooling with record lows being set everywhere, the Antarctic ice cap also at record levels, etc.

Is it possible that global warming is a political phenomenon?  Maria Konnikova's article [...] describes the considerable evidence that university academics, who control hiring and publication decisions, are so burdened by bias as to reject all evidence that conflicts with their predominantly left-liberal-internationalist ideology.  Perhaps that explains why the hypothesis of trend-less natural change in global mean temperatures is not widely accepted as being the most obvious and well-supported description of long-term climate among much of the academic community.

Climate 'Cure' Worse Than Climate Change.  We need to realise that the world will not come off fossil fuels for many decades.  Globally, we get a minuscule 0.3pc of our energy from solar and wind.  According to the International Energy Agency, even with a wildly optimistic scenario, we will get just 3.5pc of our energy from solar and wind in 2035, while paying almost $100 billion in annual subsidies.  Today, the world gets 82pc of its energy from fossil fuels, in 21 years it will still be more than 79pc.  The simple reason is that cheap and abundant energy is what powers economic growth.

The Met Office Doesn't Deserve a £97 Million Supercomputer. It Deserves to Be Scrapped.  Earlier this week, the Met Office invited us to celebrate the fact that we had allowed to be siphoned from our pockets the £97 million it allegedly needed to build a new super-computer to "produce the most scientifically accurate short-term forecast that are scientifically possible."  Does the Met Office think we are mad, gullible, possessed of exceptionally poor memories, or what?

If we didn't cause global warming, then there's nothing we can do to fix it.
Climate Change is Not Our Fault, So Let's Just Deal With It, says California Professor.  Climate change is happening — but not because of human activity, Daniel Botkin, professor Emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at University of California Santa Barbara has said.  Moreover, the focus on man-made global warming is detracting attention from real environmental disasters to nature's detriment, he has argued.

Climate Doomsday draws near: just 37 days to go.  [Professor Penny] Sackett — now the former chief scientist — issued her five-year warning four years, 10 months and 24 days ago.  Meanwhile, previous claims that global warming would cause hotter European winters may now be disregarded, because global warming has decided to make things colder instead.

Professor Proclaims We Must "Terminate Industrial Civilization" Because of Global Warming.  When it comes to the global warming hoax, neo-Marxists like Obama who want to use it as a pretext to jack taxes through the stratosphere and incrementally impose a Soviet-style command and control economy are the moderates.  Extremes exist even further to the left.  The place to find them is academia, where developing young minds are guided: [...]

Man-made climate change has been proven to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist.  John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.  Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.  In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote:  "The ocean is not rising significantly.  "The polar ice is increasing, not melting away.  Polar Bears are increasing in number.  "Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased.  There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).  "I have studied this topic seriously for years.  It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."

Hagel: Climate change a 'threat multiplier'.  Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called on other nations to join the Pentagon in taking steps to mitigate and adapt to climate change, calling it a "threat multiplier" that could exacerbate global challenges if left unaddressed.  "Climate change is a threat multiplier," Hagel said at the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas in Arequipa, Peru, "because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we already confront today — from infectious disease to armed insurgencies — and to produce new challenges in the future."

Margaret Thatcher: Godmother of 'global warming'?  As someone once said: "Probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue" is this:  "Margaret Thatcher had a B.Sc. degree in chemistry."  It was at Margaret Thatcher's personal instigation that the UK Met Office set up its Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, which — in one of her final acts as Prime Minister — she opened in 1990.  The Hadley Centre, in turn, helped to produce the primary data set which was used by the newly founded IPCC to "assess observed global warming".

The Seven Sacraments of Liberalism.  [#6] Climate Change:  Liberals believe the world would be better off if there were no human beings in it.  Until then, we must realize that white males, the real source of evil in the world, are raping everything by driving SUVs.  Heartless white men think nothing of polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.  The climate change they cause by driving SUVs will drown New York and San Francisco, home to many elite liberals.

Watching the Goalposts Being Moved.  Bay Area radio evangelist Harold Camping was properly excoriated throughout both the legacy media and the Blogosphere for his prediction that the world would end on May 21st, 2011.  How many not-so-final countdowns are the gnostic high priests of climate allowed to issue before being similarly called out as false prophets?

As Terrorism, War and Disease Ravage the Globe, Leftist World Leaders Focus on... the Global Warming Scam.  On September 23, representatives from 190 nations will gather at the Climate Summit 2014 at United Nations headquarters in New York City, including 125 heads of state.  President Obama and other world leaders will attend to discuss the urgent problem of climate change, seeking common ground in preparation for a "meaningful global agreement in 2015." [...] It was reported last month that the Obama administration is pursuing a global accord to compel nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

The Empire of Progressive Poverty.  Global Warming rhetoric is still couched in the usual social justice rhetoric, aimed at the poorer kleptocracies who are eager to join the line for a handout, but its logic is poverty driven.  It is not out to create wealth, but to eliminate it, on the grounds that cheaply available food or electricity is an immoral activity that damages the planet.  The Empire of Poverty is chiefly concerned with the impoverishing of the West, to maintain the manufactured scarcities of its water empire it has gone beyond taxation to entirely shutting down or crippling entire branches of human activity.  This could not be justified by appeals to class or race alone.  Social justice could not shut down power plants or decrease food production.  Its impact was not sufficient to maintain a state of permanent poverty.  For the water empire to succeed, it is necessary to destroy any form of social mobility not dependent on the centralized system.

New York Magazine: How to Psychologically Fool Conservatives Into Accepting Global Warming.  New York magazine poses the problem of how to fool conservatives into buying the global warming beliefs.  The answer provided by writer Jesse Singal is to psychologically manipulate them via long term "framing interventions."  If you think the tone of the article is dripping with condescension toward the "conservative yahoos" you would be right.  One failed attempt at such obvious manipulation is to call it "climate change" instead of global warming since there has been no global warming for about the past 14 years.  Of course, Singal himself has proved that he is not up to psychological manipulation speed since lately they have been calling it "climate disruption" since it was pointed out that climate always changes.

Psychologists Are Learning How to Convince Conservatives to Take Climate Change Seriously.  If there weren't such a stark divide between American conservatives and almost everyone else on the question of the existence and importance of climate change — a divide that can approach 40 points on some polling questions — the political situation would be very different.  So if any progress on climate change is going to be made through the American political system — apart from executive orders by Democratic presidents — it is going to have to somehow involve convincing a lot of conservatives that yes, climate change is a threat to civilization.  How do you do that?  The answer has more to do with psychology than politics.

Climate Change Has Jumped the Shark.  Here's why: From the beginning 25 years ago the arguments over climate science have dominated the scene and distracted us away from the fundamental problem:  the prescribed method for preventing climate change is essentially replacing nearly all hydrocarbon energy, in the space of less than two generations.  Climate orthodoxy calls for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, worldwide, by the year 2050, which would take the United States back to a level of hydrocarbon energy use last seen more than 100 years ago.  For the developing world, it means remaining poor for several more decades.  There has been very little recognition and less candor about the sheer fantasy of the emissions target.

Global Warming Not Proceeding As Planned.  If you haven't noticed, the United Nations is having its annual meeting of the minds in New York.  Heads of state and other prominent characters from around the world are gathering to discuss the issues that are supposed to concern us all.  You know, important issues such as global warming, radical Islam, climate change, and more global warming.  One would think radical Islam would be at the center of the agenda, given how many people it is killing across the Middle East, but it is taking a back seat to global warming.

Chief Meteorologist At Weatherbell Analytics: Organizers Of People's Climate March Were 'Prostituting The Weather And Climate'.  [Joe] Bastardi said that people are not causing climate change and expects scientific data to eventually back that up.  "The debate on what is going on is over.  It is over.  Now we just have to see what happens when the Atlantic flips into its cold cycle and the cyclical nature of the sun, whether we return to the temperatures we were in the late seventies as measured by objective satellite readings."  He commented that the protestors at the climate march were more concerned with their political agenda than climate science.

Climate Science Is Not Settled.  The climate has always changed and always will.  Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades.  We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.  Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate.

Leo vs. science: vanishing evidence for climate change.  In the runup to the Sept. 23 UN Climate Summit in New York, Leonardo DiCaprio is releasing a series of films about the "climate crisis." [...] DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it's no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled.  Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse.  Science is never settled, but the current state of "climate change" science is quite clear:  There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.

Global Warming and the Feynman Test.  Modern climate fear-mongering is the latest example of the prostitution of science in the service of liberal ideology.  Were polymath Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman alive today I suspect he'd be condemning the whole climate conspiracy as a gross abuse of the good name of science.

If you believe in evolution, then don't worry about climate change.  [A]s a scientifically literate person I have one question for those who accept the theory of evolution:  "Why do you care about climate change and its effects on different species?"  There is ample evidence that the Earth's climate has been changing, and that species have been going extinct, throughout history.  These two processes are in fact required in order for evolution to occur.

Global Warming/Climate Change Scaring us into accepting a world government.  Everyone on earth would agree with Mr. Obama that climate change is not a hoax.  Actually, the climate has changed every day since God created the earth.  Today may be a sunny 70-degree day, while tomorrow might bring rain and drop into the fifties.  Bingo, the climate just changed!  However, it is Mr. Obama's definition of climate change that is simply not true.  He boldly proclaims that carbon pollution or Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is heating our planet, which is resulting in an increase in droughts, floods and wildfires that threaten the future of our children.  Seeing the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that has been given over the years that totally disproves the theory of man-made global warming, one has to wonder why the president or anyone else would even bring it up.

Beckel: Climate Change Bigger Threat Than ISIL.  Bob Beckel, token liberal panelist of "The Five" on Fox News, sparred with his co-hosts today, claiming that climate change was a bigger threat to the U.S. than the terror group ISIL.

The Editor says...
Those on the political left have recently revived the global warming hoax as a distraction from a wide variety of political scandals.  To say that global warming is the most urgent problem in the world, as Hillary Clinton recently did (see below), is to invert the truth:  There is no problem less consequential than global warming at the moment simply because there has been no global warming in the last 18 years.

Hillary Clinton: Global Climate Change 'The Most Consequential, Urgent, Sweeping Collection Of Challenges' Faced By World.  Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday [9/4/2014] the U.S. should become what she called the world's 21st-century clean energy superpower, during remarks resembling both a campaign speech and a call to action at the annual National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.

UN Agency Presents 'Imaginary But Realistic' Weather Forecasts for 2050.  In a fresh effort to generate fervor for a far-reaching new global climate agreement, a U.N. agency is releasing videos featuring "imaginary but realistic" weather reports set in 2050, to illustrate the type of extreme conditions it predicts we will face by mid-century.  But the first video in the series of 15 to be rolled out over the coming weeks shows some temperatures for 2050 considerably in excess of those projected in the latest major U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (which has itself been dubbed "too alarmist" by some critics.)

What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do.  Of the various petitions circulated for signatures by scientists on the global warming issue, the one that has garnered by far the most signatures — more than 31,000 names — says "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

I Simply Do Not Care About Global Warming.  Let me assure you that the world is not going to end and we are not going to cause ourselves to go extinct.  [The IPCC] report is written by a bunch of people who believe in the evolution of humanity, but somehow think mankind is unable to adapt to changing circumstances.  The simple fact is that, if they are right and the world is warming, there is nothing we can do short of economic Armageddon to stop it.  We've already told most of the third world they have to hide under nets or die of malaria because we do not want them using DDT.  We should not now tell them they have to turn off their electricity and never improve their existence because of global warming.

It's about the Money, Not the Climate.  These days, when some world leader or politician speaks of the climate — the weather is what is happening right now wherever you are — they are not talking about sunshine or rain.  They are talking about a devilishly obscene way of raising money by claiming that it is humans that are threatening the climate with everything they do, from turning on the lights to driving anywhere.  That's why "global warming" was invented in the late 1980s as an immense threat to the Earth and to mankind.  Never mind that Earth has routinely passed through warmer and cooler cycles for billions of years; much of which occurred before mankind emerged.  And never mind that the Earth has been a distinct cooling cycle for the past seventeen years and likely to stay in it for a while.

The central climate fallacy is that the unknowns are known.  Yes, liberating greenhouse gases by combustion will cause some warming — all other things being equal.  Yes, we are liberating greenhouse gases by combustion.  These things have been established beyond reasonable doubt.  But what has not been established is the crucial quantitative question how much warming we may cause.  That simple fact has been relentlessly and artfully concealed from the population, who have been sedulously deluded into believing that "the science is certain" and that anyone who questions how much warming we may cause is by implication also challenging the well-established experimental results showing that greenhouse gases cause warming.

Climate Science Does Not Support IPCC Conclusions.  When it comes to global average surface temperature (GAST), the concern seems to be to remain below 2 deg.  It should be recognized that this limit is entirely arbitrary.  There is no established scientific basis for assigning special significance to it; it just happens to be the "Goldilocks" number.  Here is what I mean:  If one were to choose 0.5 deg, people will say "we've already seen that and nothing has happened."  However, if we were to choose 5 deg, people will say, "we'll never see that much warming — hence of no significance."  That is why 2 deg may have become the alarmists' choice.

Buyer beware: Obama administration's hurry-up climate plan based on big distortions.  Have you ever rushed to avoid missing an offer that will expire in 30 minutes and then regretted it?  President Obama's claim that we must act immediately to prevent climate change deserves the same careful scrutiny that we should give to our personal purchases. [...] Contrary to the president's claims, there is no scientific consensus that climate change has driven recent weather events or that climate change is now causing harm.

Feds Will Spend $450K to Help Native Americans Adapt to 'Climate Change'.  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans to spend up to $450,000 in taxpayer dollars to teach Native American tribes in the Great Basin region "climate adaptation plans" for their hunting, fishing and gathering activities.  "Due to climate change, the natural landscapes are becoming impacted," and the "traditional practices for hunting, fishing, and gathering for ceremonial purposes" can potentially create further impacts," according to BLM's Cooperative Agreement announcement.

Birth of a Climate Mafia.  Can something good come from a U.S. splurge of climate pork that, in itself, would have no discernible effect on global climate or atmospheric carbon dioxide?  A probable answer is no.  It would actually end up making our putative carbon challenge worse.

The Greatest Climate Myths of All — Part 1.  In the simplest of terms every study that has attributed the recent warming of the 1980s and 90s to rising CO2 has been based on the difference between their models' reconstruction of "natural climate change" with their models' output of "natural climate change plus CO2."  However the persistent failure of their models to reproduce how "climate changed before," means any attribution of warming due to CO2, is at best unreliable and at worse a graphic fairy tale.

The Greatest Climate Myths of All — Part 2.  From latitudes 40° North or South to the poles, the earth increasingly ventilates more heat than it absorbs.  Climate change at those higher latitudes is dominated by variations in the transport of surplus tropical heat.  Scientists estimate "Without these heat transports the atmosphere would have an equator-pole surface air temperature difference of 100° C, which is more than twice the present value of 40°C."  Equally important, surplus equatorial heat is generated by the sun, with a very small and dubious contribution from CO2.

Problems with Risky Climate Projections.  The Risky Business report is being used to help shape the United States' climate change policies, as evidenced by the subsequent meeting between White House officials, [Tom] Steyer, and [Henry] Paulson to discuss the report's findings.  Yet, it appears hardly any journalists or scientists are critically analyzing the predictions made by the Risky Business project, despite the clear disconnect between the lack of recent trends in the number of extremely hot and cold days and the alarmist projections made by the project.

Newsweek's Antarctic Global Warming Scares Cancelled.  Despite Newsweek's fantasies to the contrary, Antarctic sea ice has been consistently increasing since satellites first began measuring the sea ice in 1979.  The sea ice expansion has been particularly dramatic in recent years as Antarctic sea ice extent has set dozens of new records.  As is the case with so many other asserted global warming catastrophes — hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, crop production, forest fires, etc. — objective evidence shows global warming is having the exact opposite effect claimed by global warming alarmists.

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.  July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared "too hot to handle" by NASA scientists. [...] But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday [6/29/2014] he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.

The education establishment's success.  Are you for or against global warming, later renamed climate change and more recently renamed climate disruption?  Environmentalists have renamed it because they don't want to look silly in the face of cooling temperatures. [...] Throughout the Earth's history, we've had both ice ages and higher temperatures when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today.  There's one immutable fact about climate.  It changes, and mankind can't do anything about it.  Only idiocy would conclude that mankind's capacity to change the climate is more powerful than the forces of nature.

Kerry: 'At Least 98, 99 Percent of All The Scientists in Our Country' Believe in Climate Change.  At a time when debate is swirling over the assertion that 97 percent of scientists endorse man-made global warming, Secretary of State John Kerry — a frequent citer of the 97 percent figure — in a speech Wednesday [6/18/2014] nudged the figure up to "at least 98, 99 percent."  "When it comes to climate change, when it comes to food security, we are literally facing a moment of adversity — perhaps even dire necessity," Kerry said at a State Department food security award ceremony.

Pentagon Ridiculed for Debunked "Climate" Report.  Even in a federal bureaucracy infamous for squandering taxpayer dollars, the massive sums of public wealth burned up paying for and preparing for absurd "global-warming" scenarios still stick out.  Now, the Defense Department is dealing with ridicule and strong criticism over an embarrassing "climate" report produced by consultants a decade ago that was wrong about literally everything.  Lawmakers, too, are getting fed up with the "climate" antics, with the House voting to prohibit any more Pentagon spending on Obama's increasingly outlandish global-warming alarmism.  The silly 2003 Pentagon document was widely cited by global-warming theorists and the establishment press as evidence that humanity was facing certain doom and that alleged man-made "climate change" was a "national security concern."  This week, though, the dubious report is in the headlines again after every single one of the apocalyptic scenarios it envisioned proved to be wildly off the mark.  By now, under the pseudo-scientific "not implausible" scare-mongering outlined in the report, the world should be a total disaster zone.

Climate Cultists.  The climate change crusaders, who have been at it for a quarter-century, appear to be going clinically mad.  Start with the rhetorical monotony and worship of authority ("97 percent of all scientists agree!"), add the Salem witch trial-style intimidation and persecution of dissenters, and the categorical demand that debate about science or policy is over because the matter is settled, and you have the profile of a cult-like sectarianism that has descended into paranoia and reflexive bullying.  Never mind the scattered and not fully suppressed findings of climate scientists that the narrative of catastrophic global warming is overstated, like nearly every previous predicted environmental apocalypse.  It matters not.

Glaciers and Global Warming.  Global warming is a way of smuggling collectivist ideology into political power, broadening economic controls, social engineering and effacing individual rights, all under the banner of collective good.  The global warming issue is really a political ticket to a dangerous future of centralized control.  It is the future version of George Orwell's 1984.  If the government says something is "true," it is, even if it isn't.  If it says global warming is occurring, that is "true," even if it isn't.  If it says it is caused by CO2, that is "true," even if it isn't.  If EPA says CO2 must be regulated because it is a health hazard, that is "true" even if it isn't.

Springtime For Warmists.  Last month Rush Limbaugh remarked that the reason for "the re-establishment of climate change and global warming as a new primary impetus of the White House" is that "it offers the president opportunities to be dictatorial."  A defender of the president might counter that "dictatorial" is overwrought. [...] But National Journal's Lucia Graves takes a different approach.  Instead of denying that Obama's actions are dictatorial, she disputes Limbaugh's implicit premise that there's anything wrong with that. [...] Yes, it has come to this.  Americans are being urged to submit to "dictatorial" government because democracy is incapable of controlling the weather.  "In college classes, climate change is taught as a textbook example of where democracy fails," Graves asserts in the very first sentence of her column.

My Two Favorite Questions for Global Warmists.  [A]nthropogenic CO2 emissions must be examined in full context with numerous other climate variables such as solar activity, volcanism, magnetic field shifts, etc.  An inquiry like this is certain to be dauntingly, perhaps overwhelmingly, complex if conducted like authentic, inductive science.  Global warmism advocates have shamelessly evaded this monumental evidence burden — and the burden is entirely on them — by resorting to garbage-in-garbage-out computer models, even outright data fraud and deceitfulness.  Global warmism remains the most colossal hoax ever perpetrated.

The New Regressives.  [Scroll down]  I don't have the expertise to know exactly to what degree, if any, man-caused carbon releases since the Industrial Revolution have heated up the planet, or whether the supposed heating is deleterious to the human condition, or whether the deleteriousness can be addressed by global statutes that are equitably enforced around the world without causing greater impoverishment and suffering.  But I do know something about philology and the historical circumstances behind both euphemism and the constant shifting of vocabulary.  Thus why did "global warming" begat "climate change" that sometimes begat "climate chaos"?  And why, at this time of history's greatest carbon releases, has the planet not warmed in the last 17 years?  Why was data massaged to create the so-called "hockey stick" paradigm?

Americans no Longer Live in a Scientific Society.  In addressing the claims of misused science, no subject is more readily apparent than Global Warming.  To suggest that AGW has been designed to punish more advanced nations and force them to disgorge wealth to the developing world is certainly true.  Moreover, that the ideology is transparently Marxist in origin is obvious to the nth degree.  The employment of "science" in the support of AGW has been so far over the top as to beggar belief.  Despite the announcement that the globe has not increased in temperature for several decades, and scientists were asked to cover this up, it has become a weekly event for some group or person to claim that the earth is on the verge of baking, melting, drowning, or somehow dying.

Obama's Alarmist "Climate" Report Debunked by Scientists.  Like virtually every alarmist global-warming warning produced by government or the United Nations in recent decades, it did not take long for the Obama administration's latest doom-and-gloom-packed "climate change" report to be debunked by independent scientists.  Indeed, it took less than two weeks for experts to go through the 840-page White House document and tear its outlandish claims to shreds — often using United Nations reports and the federal government's own data to do so, issuing a blistering critique of the "nonsense" and "deception" put forward by the administration.  Now, with the predicted surge in Earth's temperatures still on "pause" after almost 18 years, the Obama administration and its coterie of global-warming theorists are being blasted and ridiculed for fear-mongering, deception, and more.

NCA Rebuttal.  The National Climate Assessment-2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts.  With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.

The truth about the science in Obama's National Climate Assessment.  The report depends heavily on "consensus reporting," the agreement of a large number of scientists that the statements are true or that new information "increases confidence" of the large group of authors.  But as someone who has studied climate and its effect on biology for 45 years, I know this way of expressing science is, in fact, deeply unscientific.  Consensus reporting is in reality a way of avoiding or obscuring the facts, most especially in science, where the disproval of previously held truths is the central aim.  A close examination of the assessment shows that many of the dire forecasted effects that consensus aims to buttress are highly selective, mostly unproven or simply made up.

The Corruption of Science.  Scientists will exaggerate the importance of their own work.  However, there should be a line that is not crossed — the line that separates self-promotion from corruption.  The corruption of science does not necessarily mean lying or faking data.  Mostly it is a matter of exaggerating the danger, or importance, of some theory, or else remaining passive while others exaggerate.  A common corrupt path to scientific success is to discover and overpromote a new danger; perhaps something that causes cancer, hurts children, or poisons the environment.  The scientists who discover and overpromote the new danger become heroes and get more grants and more money.

10 Reasons Why John Kerry Deserves A Magna Cum Laude In Climate Pseudo-Science.  4.  "97 percent of the world's scientists tell us..."  No they don't.  This is a reference to the widely discredited Doran Survey, based on the opinions of a heavily-stacked poll eventually involving just 75 scientists. [...] 9.  This is not a matter of politics or partisanship.  Of course it is.  "Climate change" is the Obama administration's last desperate shot at trying to justify its aggressively left-liberal policymaking.  Problem is, the hard science just doesn't back it up.  10.  It's a matter of science.  If only.  If it were about real science — the scientific method; free and open enquiry; evidence — the issue would have been decided long ago.  In favour of the "skeptics" — not the deniers.

President Obama's Global Warming Calculated Deception Means Democrats Have Abandoned Working People.  I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk... based on a theory that the increase in the atmosphere from the exhaust from the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in 'the greenhouse effect' causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably.  This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong.  But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the $2.6 billion dollars a year of Federal grants for global warming, climate change, research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers."

John Kerry slams climate change critics in graduation speech: 'We are risking nothing less than the future of the entire planet'.  Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduates of Boston College on Monday [5/19/2014] that they have doom and destruction to look forward to if they don't take climate change more seriously than previous generations.  'And I know its hard to feel the urgency as we sit here on an absolutely beautiful morning in Boston,' Kerry said, 'you might not see climate change as an immediate threat to your job, your communities or your families.  'But let me tell you, it is.'

German Govt Falsifies Climate Report Translation To Hide Green Policy Failure.  The German Ministry of Environment has falsified the conclusions of a UN climate change report in the German-language version released last week, in an attempt to hide the fact that the country's 'green policies' are useless.  The ministry's four-page summary of the report contains outright contradictions and falsifications of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations, apparently made to hide UN criticism of the way the German government has turned emissions-trading into a cash cow for futile renewable energy projects.

Michael Mann and the Hockey Stick Graph.  Michael Mann is one of the most partisan advocates for the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory.  He is controversial for several reasons:  he invented the "hockey stick" graph, which was intended to show that recent warming trends were unprecedented, and has since been exposed as a hoax that misrepresents historic temperatures.  He has fought bitterly to prevent his own emails from being discovered in litigation, even though he is a public employee whose research is lavishly funded by taxpayers.  He has participated in some of the dishonest "tricks" — their word — by which climate alarmists have kept billions of dollars in government money flowing their way.  Along with his other faults, Mann is litigious.  He has sued National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mark Steyn for criticizing him, a case he inevitably will lose.

Breaking: The "97 percent climate consensus" canard.  TV watchers will recall the familiar advertising trope of yesteryear in which we were told "4 out of 5 dentists [or doctors] recommend" using fluoride toothpaste, aspirin for headaches, or some such.  We were always left to wonder whether that fifth doctor was a moron or something, never pausing to consider that the fifth doctor might well recommend the same thing, [...] Likewise we ought to wonder about the favorite cliché of the Climatistas these days — that "97 percent of scientists 'believe in' climate change."  As I've written before, the only real surprise is that the number isn't 100 percent.  There is virtually no one who thinks the climate hasn't changed or won't change in the future, or that there is no human influence on the phenomenon.

Another Noble Quest With No Solution.  The arrival last week of the enormous — 829 pages! — and laborious U.S. National Climate Assessment, a report put together by 300 American worrywarts, reminds me of a little noted fact.  The American left has no practical solution for many of the problems that agitate it, and that its neurotics hope will agitate us.  Put another way, the left is given to setting the American people off on noble quests for which there is no solution.  A case in point is global warming or climate change.

The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere.  Given the new information now available from the Southern Hemisphere, climate scientists must consider a larger role for natural climate variability in contributing to global temperature changes over the past millennium.

In The End, Their Credibility Will Melt Away Quite Suddenly.  In 2007, leading experts said that the Arctic will be ice-free by 2013, and that it will all melt away quite suddenly. [...] These climate experts talk very confidently about things they understand nothing about, it gets repeated by useful idiots in the press, and then they both get paid to drag civilization back to the dark ages.

Government Will Control You Before It Controls Climate.  Ultimately, it will not matter if people in government cynically promote the theory that human activity is destroying the global climate as a means of taking control of your life, or if they take control of your life because they sincerely believe human activity is destroying the global climate.  Either way, government will control your life.  The National Climate Assessment the Obama administration released this week describes in Sisyphean terms the task government faces in limiting carbon dioxide emissions, which the assessment says make up 84 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions it holds guilty of artificially warming our planet.

Tilting at Climate Windmills.  I admit that I haven't waded through the entire 840-page report, but nothing I can find in the material provided for mass consumption offers convincing links between the report's observations (or its outlandish predictions) and the potentially underlying causes.  It seems nothing more than mere presumption that the cause of the observations and predictions is carbon and fossil fuel proliferation.  You're simply to assume that it's true because they say so.  Think no more.

Obama's climate change diversion.  The Obama administration's war on affordable energy ramped up a major notch this week with release of the government's latest guess about future weather events, something it calls the "National Climate Assessment."  The administration, anxious to continue taxpayer-provided subsidies to politically-favored green energy firms that return the favor with campaign contributions to Democrats, claims it used the expertise of hundreds of "experts" to come up with the findings.  A cursory glance of the participants shows no participation by climate realists but leading report authors from environmental political action groups like Second Nature, The Nature Conservancy, Planet Forward, and the misnamed Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that is not made up of scientists at all and which also advocates for unilateral U.S. nuclear disarmament.

The Climate Change Debate Is Over, And Environmentalists Lost.  The bloodcurdling National Climate Assessment is here and it portends catastrophe; floods, clouds and other assorted weather events are imminent! [...] Have you noticed that we're always at the cusp of a cataclysm, yet the deadline to act always moves to a politically convenient not-too-distant future?  I guess when the time to act runs out — it will at some point, right? — we can begin thinking about defunding all these panels and reinvesting in something more productive:  like figuring out how we can adapt to the future.

Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change.  Every year environmental groups celebrate a night when institutions in developed countries (including my own university) turn off their lights as a protest against fossil fuels.  They say their goal is to get America and Europe to look from space like Africa:  dark, because of minimal energy use.  But that is the opposite of what's desired by Africans I know.  They want Africa at night to look like the developed world, with lights in every little village and with healthy people, living longer lives, sitting by those lights.  Real years added to real lives should trump the minimal impact that African carbon emissions could have on a theoretical catastrophe.

Final fed climate report will present dire picture.  The Obama administration is more certain than ever that global warming is changing Americans' daily lives and will worsen — conclusions that scientists will detail in a massive federal report to be released Tuesday [5/6/2014].

Climate-trivia headlines and the BoM's unscientific obession with "hottest ever" records.  Bob Fernley Jones takes a close look at Australian temperature records, and finds that while the BoM can fish out records that are technically true, those "records" can also be paradoxically irrelevant and largely meaningless at the same time.  Not so long back weren't these same people telling us that only long term climate trends mattered, and that one hot or cold year, or bad storm was cherry picking and unscientific?  Dare I suggest the obsession with headline records is more a PR stunt than a scientific measure?

Common Sense and Climate Change.  There is no "normal" temperature for Earth.  What is normal is for the temperature, over hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of years, to vary greatly.  The cycle of periods of extreme warmth and cold, and everything in between, is what is normal.  Before man and after man, the Earth has experienced these huge swings in temperatures.  Who are we to say that the climate for the last couple of hundred-thousand years is normal and that some deviation of a degree or two is abnormal?  Who are we to say that the rising or falling of sea levels from recent levels is abnormal?

Chicken Little 'science'.  A recent story in The New York Times sought to help alarmists raise the decibel level:  "The countries of the world have dragged their feet so long on global warming that the situation is now critical, experts appointed by the United Nations reported Sunday, and only an intensive worldwide push over the next 15 years can stave off potentially disastrous climatic changes later in the century."  I guess we had better get ready for climate Armageddon then because China, one of the world's worst polluters, is not likely to comply.

The Editor says...
When we all dragged our feet, what was the result?  Global warming stopped, all by itself.  Let's all drag our feet for another 50 years and see what happens.

Kerry: Big Bucks in Climate Change.  What we usually hear about when the subject is climate change is stuff meant to scare you out of your socks.  Rising oceans, violent storms, draughts, famines, plagues of locusts, and so forth.  The implied alternative is austerity so severe — no cars, rationed electricity, smaller houses, once-a-week cold showers, etc. — that people are inclined to think, "Well, that will never happen," and tune out.

Give up meat, coal, oil, economic growth and national sovereignty, orders new IPCC climate report.  The Working Group I report, released in September last year, admitted that there has been an inexplicable pause in global warming since 1997, which none of its computer models predicted.  (In other words, the entire basis of man-made-global warming theory — which underpins Working Group III's demands for "decarbonisation" — may depend on a flawed assumption, unsupported by real-world evidence).

The hysteria is wearing a little thin.
Global warming not taken seriously: World Bank's Kim.  Global warming is not being taken seriously and time is running out to avoid consequences like flooded cities and dried out farmland, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said Thursday.  "We are quickly coming to the point where we are not going to be able to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius," Kim said at the start of the IMF-World Bank spring meetings in Washington.  "Warming by two degrees Celsius is going to have major implications.... 40 percent of the arable land in Africa will be gone at two degrees Celsius; Bangkok could very well be underwater at two degrees Celsius," he said.

The Editor says...
Two degrees above what, exactly?  Mr. Kim seems to know the exact temperature above (or presumably below) which the earth simply can't function like it does today.  To lecture about this, he has to ignore the Medieval Warm Period.

Science and Panic.  We are bombarded with dire warnings about our environment, but nearly all of the research purported to support those claims was funded by the political powers advocating them.  Political powers will pick-and-choose scientists who provide useful factoids, despite what caveats those scientists attach to preserve their credibility.  The topic of climate change brings this mixture to an extreme, such that some scientists have traded activism for credibility.  Politicians may further distort or lie about scientific findings, especially when results are scarce, inconclusive or contradictory.  For the layman or dangerously educated, point-by-point arguments are pointless, as it becomes difficult to discern between fact, deception, science or politics.

Are global warming alarmists just a conglomerate of eco radicals and third world grifters?  [Scroll down]  The UN was the natural forum for this push and the IPCC, headed by an railway engineer, the natural "scientific" instrument.  We know how that story has turned out to this point.  No global warming registered for 17 years and 6 months despite all the dire, but apparently scientifically groundless, predictions.

How did the IPCC's alarmism take everyone in for so long?  When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen.  They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 percent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. [...] They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt.

The freedom not to question climate change.  The goal of eliminating fossil fuels would inevitably reduce civilization to a thin veneer of culture over a primitive hunting-gathering society.  So with such huge consequences, it would seem a reasonable request to have a debate about the validity of the science which demands such earth-shattering changes from society.  But free debate is the last thing that climate-change proponents want.  Instead, they want everyone to accept "settled science" and move on to the "solution." [...] The earth's climate is changing now, in 2014, just like it has always been changing.  Climate is a dynamic, not a static system.  Ergo, climate change in itself does not prove anything.

Admitting Global Warming "Info Manipulation".  Climate Depot ran a story about a peer-reviewed journal article that defends exaggerating about global warming.  I decided to check it out.  Sure enough.  The need for international global warming agreements is so urgent, the authors claim, that "exaggeration" is justified in communicating with the great unwashed so as to increase their pessimism. [...] "Information manipulation" undermines people's trust in science (at least, by association), destroys what is left of the media's credibility on this issue, and is toxic to democratic deliberation.  We have known we are being manipulated in this debate for a long time.  The good news is that it doesn't work well anymore except among those who are ideologically committed Chicken Littlists.

Panel's Warning on Climate Risk: Worst Is Yet to Come.  The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations group that periodically summarizes climate science, concluded that ice caps are melting, sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, water supplies are coming under stress, heat waves and heavy rains are intensifying, coral reefs are dying, and fish and many other creatures are migrating toward the poles or in some cases going extinct.  The oceans are rising at a pace that threatens coastal communities and are becoming more acidic as they absorb some of the carbon dioxide given off by cars and power plants, which is killing some creatures or stunting their growth, the report found.

The Editor says...
The New York Times "news" story immediately above presents a worst-case hypothetical scenario as an inevitable fact.  A long list of catastrophic events is blamed on  global warming  climate change, which in turn is blamed on the internal combustion engine and centralized generation of electricity — or capitalism, in a word.  The proposed solutions involve transfer of wealth from the rich countries to the poor ones; that is, global marxism.

Senators Should Know the Truth about Global Warming.  Humans have been fertilizing Earth's greenery worldwide, but not with nitrogen-based fertilizer that runs into the rivers and oceans with very negative effects.  We have been raising the level of CO2, which has no negative effect on any plant or animal life.  There is no instance of CO2 being a pollutant; ask any chemistry professor.  CO2 is colorless, odorless, and tasteless.  The vapors you are shown bellowing from the various smoke stacks are not CO2, although some may be present.  The colorful emissions the media shows you secretly imply they contain what is referred to as CO2 pollution.  Since CO2 is not a pollutant, what impact does it have?  As we learned in the third grade, CO2 is what plants eat.  The more of it they eat, the faster and larger they grow, including the food crops.

Obama talks climate change in Showtime documentary.  President Obama will discuss climate change in an upcoming Showtime documentary series produced by James Cameron.  Mashable reports the segment with Obama will offer an exclusive understanding of the president's thoughts on climate science and policy.

The Editor says...
Is it a documentary or a propaganda film?  Mr. Obama will read a teleprompter and pronounce someone else's thoughts on climate science and policy.  If you were to separate Obama from his teleprompter and ask him what carbon dioxide is or what it does, or why he thinks carbon dioxide is harmful, he probably couldn't tell you.  That's because he is poorly educated and unfit for his job.

Climate Alarmists Sink to a Comedic Low.  Explaining Historic Cold Confronted with the embarrassment of historic cold gripping the nation just as the Obama administration launches a new offensive on the mythical global warming crisis, environmental activists and their media allies just invented their most knee-slapping assertion yet:  that global warming causes winter cold outbreaks.  After about 48 hours of silence after the cold temperatures hit while they scrambled to come up with an explanation, global warming activists now say they have always predicted global warming would cause more frequent and severe winter cold spells.

Global warming makes for stormy politics.  No one who lives in the Northeast doubts that it's been a rough winter.  Snow totals have been near record highs and temperatures have been near record lows.  As a result, "extreme weather" has become a feature of meteorology.  In fact, the word "weather" hardly ever appears in the press without the word "extreme" before it.  I attribute that mostly to the hyperbolic efforts of media outlets to attract ever-bigger audiences.  Plain "weather" is boring compared with "extreme weather."  Boring doesn't improve ratings.  There's more to it than that, though.  Every time it snows a lot, or rains in buckets, or the wind blows hard and long, someone, in fact a lot of people, say that's proof that the globe is warming because of pollution.

The dubious apocalypse of global warming.  [R]esearchers at the University of Maryland insist that global warming will destroy civilization. [...] There's a solution, of course. Higher taxes, increased regulation and more government supervision of everyone's lives, and other liberal nostrums.  In an earlier presentation on "Population and Climate Change," the Maryland researchers find hope.  "In order to avoid collapse, government policies are needed to stabilize population and stabilize industrial production per person."  A powerful centralized government must take over the means of production and even reproduction.  "Family planning is cost-effective," they write, "and should be a primary method to reduce [carbon-dioxide] emissions."

Wikipedia on Global Warming.  [Scroll down]  These two articles are the only Wikipedia entries (excluding the Simple English Wikipedia piece) on global warming.  They're entitled 'Global warming' (2002 to 2014) and 'Global warming controversy' (2003 to 2014).  The thing is:  they're both written by the same person.  The positions advanced in them are almost indistinguishable and even the wording is often quite literally identical.  However, it is indeed the case that Wiki articles receive many "edits".  Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that they are written by a single person (or a specific group of people).  The editors can only edit what's already there.  The main point is that these articles are two of the most biased and one-sided I've ever read on the subject of the AGWT.

Warren Buffett: Supposed Increase in Extreme Weather 'Hasn't Been True So Far'.  Any climate alarmist will tell you that climate change is increasing extreme weather events, but liberal billionaire Warren Buffett easily destroyed that argument.  Buffett told CNBC March 3, that extreme weather events haven't increased due to climate change, saying that weather events are consistent with how they were 30-50 years ago.  Buffett, who is heavily invested in various insurance markets, said that climate change alarmism has simply made hurricane insurance more profitable, driving up premiums without increasing risk.

Debate over climate change goes from hot to cold.  U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was right to tell Indonesians recently that climate change is a serious danger to humanity if not addressed appropriately.  Although asserting that such changes are "the greatest threat that the planet has ever seen" was clearly over the top, history shows that disaster ensues when societies do not properly deal with climate change.  But Kerry ruined his credibility on the issue when he asserted that climate science is "simple," and "not really a complicated equation."  Trying to unravel the causes and consequences of climate change is arguably the most complex science ever tackled.

The Original Sin of Global Warming.  [Scroll down]  This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial civilization.  All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion — we're "ravaging the planet" — and we're only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion.  That brings us to where we are today.  The establishment's approach to the scientific debate over global warming is to declare that no such debate exists — and to ruthlessly stamp it out if anyone tries to start one.

Climate Alarmists [are] Never Called Out For Spreading Fear.  Al Gore was at it again over the weekend, scaring people unnecessarily about global warming.  He, and others like him, should be held accountable for constantly trying to terrify the public. [...] The man has made a post-vice-presidency career of scaring people for no reason.  From his wildly exaggerated "Inconvenient Truth" movie to his claim years ago that the north polar ice cap would be gone by 2013 — it wasn't — to loopy predictions that "we're approaching this tipping point," Gore has been spreading hysteria and fright like a farmer sows seeds.  And so have the Democrats who have followed.  Just last week, Secretary of State John Kerry said global warming is "the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction."  He's clearly taking cues from his boss, President Obama, who has said that climate change is the "global threat of our time."

John Kerry's phony climate war.  The Obama administration's latest foray on climate change — clearly setting the predicate for a regulatory offensive on the issue — is notable for its cheap argumentation.  The same people who congratulate themselves for taking climate science so seriously trample all over the facts as a matter of routine.  Nothing so annoys the alarmists about climate change (nee global warming) as when conservatives talk as if a cold snap or snowstorm falsifies the phenomenon.  Weather, they explain, rolling their eyes, isn't climate.  Or that used to be the mantra.  Now, every bit of spectacular weather is presumed to be part of the grand mosaic of climate change.

The myth of 'settled science'.  "The debate is settled," asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address.  "Climate change is a fact."  Really?  There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.

Obama, God of Weather — and Lies.  When he first ran for the presidency, Barack Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet.  On Tuesday [2/18/2014], he claimed to have delivered on that promise, telling an audience in Maryland that his administration had prevented some of the severe weather impacts of climate change by restricting carbon dioxide emissions.  Before he took office, he said, "[c]arbon pollution was going unchecked, which was having severe impacts on our weather."  He then announced he would pursue new fuel economy standards for trucks.

The Editor says...
(1) Carbon dioxide is not carbon, for the same reason that water is not hydrogen; (2) carbon dioxide does not have an impact on day-to-day weather; and (3) trucks and cars are not the only sources of CO2.

Kerry's Global Warning WMD Comparison Merits Firing.  There's a long list of Cabinet secretaries and senior aides to President Obama who have failed the nation so resoundingly they should be shown the door.  But Secretary John Kerry, who dumped his military decorations in 1971 and was dumped by voters as a presidential candidate in 2004, should definitely be the first one out.  In a pathetic attempt to distract from the Obama administration's foreign policy failures, Kerry on Sunday declared that "climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction."

Prostituting Science.  Global warming is a both scam perpetrated by greedy opportunists like Al Gore, as well as a cult composed of those disaster-dependent ding-a-lings among us who have no incentive in life if that life is not imminently threatened by whatever the latest perceived threat may be; and lastly by a bunch of avaricious academics willing to sell their scientific souls to that big government devil for a place to nose into the trough of federal funding for research.

Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?  Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age?  That's the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal, Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world's most respected atmospheric scientists. [...] Paltridge lays out the well-known uncertainties in climate forecasting.  These include our inability to properly simulate clouds that are anything like what we see in the real world, the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away.

Global warming is 'almost definitely' caused by humans, UN report claims.  Global warming is unequivocal and human influence has been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The IPCC's full and final findings on the state of the planet's climate have been published and the report, which was put together for the UN, says that limiting climate change will require 'substantial and sustained' reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.  The findings of the report, which includes the comment that global warming is 'almost definitely' caused by humans, were approved by the member governments of the IPCC in September.

Chill Out.  If the globe is warming, can America do anything about it?  No.  What we do now is pointless.  I feel righteous riding my bike to work.  That's just shallow.  Even if all Americans replaced cars with bicycles, switched to fluorescent light bulbs, got solar water heaters, etc., it would have no discernible effect on the climate.  China builds a new coal-fueled power plant almost every week; each one obliterates any carbon reduction from all our windmills and solar panels.

Warmists Pivot to Climate Adaptation.  Climate change activists utilize two strategies in their war against global warming:  mitigation and adaptation.  Despite ongoing efforts, mitigation efforts to cut CO2 emissions are failing.  There is little political will in developing countries like China and India to make sacrifices to avert a distant threat that might turn out to be nonexistent.  In response, environmentalists are increasingly focusing on adaptation strategies.

The Inventor of the Global Warming Hockey Stick Doubles Down.  Professor Michael Mann, the inventor of the Hockeystick temperature graph, had a contentious editorial essay in the January 17th issue of the New York Times.  [The Hockeystick graph purports to show that temperatures of the last thousand years declined steadily — until the 20th century, when there was a sudden large rise.]  I am using the word "inventor" on purpose, since the Hockeystick is a manufactured item and does not correspond to well-established historic reality.

Sessions Hammers EPA Administrator Unable to Defend Obama's Claims on Global Warming.  In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing Thursday [1/16/29014] on climate regulation, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) pressed EPA administrator Gina McCarthy to support President Barack Obama's statements on global warming, which have been used to justify massive proposed administrative actions.  McCarthy was unable or unwilling to support the Obama's claims despite being the central figure crafting and implementing EPA regulations... [Video clip]

Sen. Inhofe on Obama's Global Warming Claims: 'The President Just Made that Up'.  Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told a Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee hearing today [1/16/2014] that the president must have fabricated two oft-repeated climate claims.  "Both statements are false," Sen. Inhofe said of Obama's global warming claims, since neither the EPA nor the U.N. IPCC climate group can provide any supporting statistics.  "On multiple occasions, and most recently on May 30th of last year, President Obama has said, and this is a quote he has used several times, he said that 'the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago' and that 'the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.'

Global Warming [is] A Back Door To Socialism — And Now Even The UN Admits It.  As evidence discredits global warming, resistance to such facts by green elites reveals their real aim is bringing socialism in through the back door.  But don't take our word for it.  Listen to the climate change boss at the U.N.  Christiana Figueres, with the lumpy title of executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), came right out and said it:  Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming.  The really good model is communist China.

UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming.  United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming.  Communist China, she says, is the best model.  China may be the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is "doing it right" when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.  "They actually want to breathe air that they don't have to look at," she said.  "They're not doing this because they want to save the planet.  They're doing it because it's in their national interest."

It's Colder? Hotter? Blame Climate Change.  The former term — "global warming" — as it turned out, was too specific; to believe that global warming was a real threat required... well, that global warming actually occur.  That did not happen, as the data have proven, and for once Al Gore was right:  truth can be so inconvenient, because the fact that the globe failed to heat up as advertised not only swelled the ranks of doubters, but also tarnished the global warming brand.  A new label was needed.  Some people claim that the phrase "climate change" better expresses the complexity of what is happening weather-wise.

Time Magazine Swings Both Ways.  [T]he warnings for what industrialized man should do to fight global cooling are virtually identical to the warnings would-be "climate" "scientists" have given to fight global warming as well.

What Happened to Global Warming?  Always a theory at risk of imminent exposure, Man-made Global Warming (AGW — Anthropomorphic Global Warming), we should be surprised that AGW lasted as long as it did.  For Global Warming is popular, anecdotal "science," wholly dependent upon the credulity and popular support of the masses.

How Leftists (Badly) Explain Climate Stability.  Over geologic time, within a fluctuation of a few degrees, the Earth's climate has been moderate and stable.  The climate has long been similar to today's despite the fact that, in the past, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has typically been very much greater than it is today.  Why is this so?  No one knows.  That is what scientists should be trying to discover.

Time to Call Climate Change for What It Is: The Weather.  [A] report last year confirmed what I've been saying for three years now:  There's enough fossil energy available domestically for the United States to not just be energy independent, but for the U.S. to be the great exporter of energy for the world.  "Shale oil (light tight oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new unconventional resource in the US," writes PWC in its February, 2013 report Shale oil: the next energy revolution.  "There is potential for shale oil production to spread globally over the next couple of decades.  If it does, it would revolutionise global energy markets, providing greater long term energy security at lower cost for many countries."  The big winner in all this would be the United States because it has large reserves of this type of energy.

5 Myths Propping Up the Obama Presidency.  [#4] We're running out of time to stop global warming.  Even though we're at 17 years and counting of no net increase in global temperatures, the Environmental Protection Agency still acts as if warming is settled science, and silences any dissent against dogma.  Companies are being driven out of business and workers are losing their jobs because "scientists" would rather rely on faulty computer models than look out their windows.

The Guardian Slams Funding of Anti-Global Warming Groups.  What action these organizations or even entire governments could take to have any affect whatever on "climate change" defies common sense.  Nothing they could do, for example, would have any effect on the action of the Sun, the primary determinant of climate.  For the past seventeen years the Sun has been in a natural cycle of reduced radiation, less warmth for the Earth.  The result has been a cooling cycle on Earth that has crushed decades of lies about "global warming."

Barack Obama's Presidency Is A Complete Failure By His Own, Self-Imposed Standards.  [Scroll down]  As for the dishonest global warming fantasy, relatively soon the period of no global warming, which started 17 years ago, will be longer then the period of actual global warming, which was a natural cycle that lasted only 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1980s.  That was preceded by about 30 years of global temperature decline, or global cooling.

A Few Easy Tests to Debunk Global Warming Hysteria.  [Scroll down]  Obviously some powerful negative feedback mechanism was moderating the temperature, and still is.  That is the bottom line:  negative feedback keeps the Earth's climate relatively stable despite large variations in solar flux and atmospheric composition.  Man may have some influence over the climate, but the effect is likely to be very small.  There is no cause for economy-disrupting control of carbon dioxide.  Be very suspicious of those who advocate, and carry out, such a policy.  They have something most unpleasant in mind.

NASA Satellite Data Contradict 'Warmest November' Claims.  Global warming activists claim this November was the warmest on record, yet NASA and NOAA satellite data show temperatures were only modestly warmer than average. The discrepancy highlights global warming activists' desire to have not only their own opinions, but their own facts as well.  NASA satellite instruments report November 2013 was merely the ninth warmest since 1979, when NASA satellites first began uniformly measuring Earth's atmospheric temperatures.  Microwave sounders aboard NOAA satellites report November 2013 was merely the 16th warmest since 1979.

Lack of science literacy helps global warmists spread their gospel.  If the IPCC believers sound a bit like excitement-starved teenagers, that might be explained by the fact that literacy studies tend to focus on "what is learned by the time a student graduates from high school," when learning contains fewer chemistry and physics courses than it does raging hormones and dominance fights.  College graduates aren't much better.  Universities seem to indoctrinate more than educate, which probably helps whip up educated ignorance into the brand of fear marketed by IPCC scientists.

The Environmental Movement: How Corrupt Is It?  We have written many times about the corruption of the global warming movement.  Billions and billions of dollars are being poured into the pockets of global warming alarmists, because they perform such a valuable service:  they help to persuade voters that governments should be given greater control over the world's economies.  What's a few billion dollars when trillions are at stake?

The scam that will not die.  We were all supposed to be dead by now, fried to a toasty potatolike chip.  Or doomed to die with the polar bears.  It was to be a soggy end for the most beautiful planet in the cosmos and for all the passengers riding on it.  The global alarmists never quite got their story of fright and fear straight, whether by now we would be fried or frozen.  First they warned of global warming, and when they needed a new narrative "global warming" became "climate change."

Global Warming Alarmism Denies Sound Science .  Sound science dealt several devastating blows to global warming alarmism during the past few weeks, despite the best efforts of global-warming activists to sustain the drumbeat of climate fear.

Climate Change Isn't Our Top Public Health Threat.  The Environmental Protection Agency chief says global warming is the most urgent threat to public health. [...] And how many Americans die each year due to man-made global warming?  The answer is none, of course.  When confronted with this fact, the alarmists will seamlessly shift to global warming's future threat.  The danger, they say, is out there — somewhere.  Just trust them.  It is.  Even though the climate disasters they've predicted and so tightly embraced have not occurred.  Consequently, we are left to wonder:  If the real threat is to come, how many will die due to man-made global warming in coming years?  No one can say for sure, but we'll venture a guess:  zero.

The ObamaCare lie and the global warming lie.  Now that Americans have largely caught on that their government will lie to them to support the expansion of state power, America's progressives are in for a rough time ahead, according to Peter Ferrara, writing at Forbes. [...] Drawing on the work of S. Fred Singer and other leading global warming skeptics who have shown that the actual temperature evidence is contradicting the warmist hypothesis, Ferrara makes a fascinating comparison to other scientific frauds perpetrated in the name of enhancing state power.

EPA Chief: 'No More Urgent Threat to Public Health Than Climate Change'.  Ahead of her upcoming trip to China, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy told a liberal advocacy group in Washington on Monday that she has dedicated her life to protecting the environment:  "And I really see no greater issue and no more urgent threat to public health than climate change."

Fallacies about Global Warming.  The first question to be answered is whether the Earth is warming at all. [...] But even were warming to be demonstrated, and assuming a reasonable correlation between an increase in carbon dioxide and an increase in temperature, that does not mean that the former has driven the latter.  Good evidence exists from thousands of years ago that carbon dioxide levels rose only after the temperature increased, so why should we assume that the order is somehow reversed today?

Norwegian army goes vegetarian to fight global warming.  Norway's military is taking drastic steps to ramp up its war against global warming.  The Scandinavian country announced its soldiers would be put on a vegetarian diet once a week to reduce the military's carbon footprint.  "Meatless Monday's" has already been introduced at one of Norway's main military bases and will soon be rolled out to others, including overseas bases.  It is estimated that the new vegetarian diet will cut meat consumption by 150 tons per year.

The Editor says...
I would think the Norwegian Army would hope and pray for global warming, and look for a way to cause it.

Secretary of State John Kerry calls climate change the world's biggest threat.  Secretary of State John Kerry told a climate change conference in Poland Monday [11/18/2013] that global warming is the biggest challenge to the world.

What The Know-Nothings Know.  They know that the world has been warming due to humanity's awfulness, even as it has cooled for the last 15 years or more, and their only answers involve hiding evidence.  They know global warming and cooling have never naturally happened before, because they left that data out of their computer runs.  They know that solar activity has nothing to do with global temperatures.  They know that anyone who points these matters out is "anti-science."  They know that only science paid for by liberals is "settled," and that to question evidently cooked "science" makes one equivalent to a Holocaust "denier."

The 'urgency' of combating 'global warming'.  Few challenges facing America and the world are less urgent than combating the non-problem of "global warming".  On all measures, there has been no increase in global mean surface temperatures since 1995; and, according to the University of Alabama at Huntsville, near-surface temperatures in 2008 will be lower than in 1980, 28 years ago, the first complete year of satellite observations.  On all measures, global temperatures have been falling for seven full years since late 2001.

Why Does The Global Warming Hoax Persist?  The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory has now been, in my opinion, definitively refuted.  Yet the global warming machine grinds on, oblivious to the science.  Why?  Because there is a great deal of money at stake.

Obama's Executive Order on Climate.  On the surface, it might seem to make sense for the President to want to "do something" about climate events such as hurricanes, but there have always been hurricanes and blaming them and everything from droughts to wildfires on "climate change" is not just absurd, it is a deliberate lie that blames a rise in the amount of carbon dioxide, a so-called but incorrectly named "greenhouse gas", as the cause of these natural events.  The President has issued an Executive Order to ramp up efforts to address "climate change."  At the heart of the global warming hoax has been this carbon dioxide lie, but there has been no warming for over 17 years and the many computer models that predicted it were wrong; many were deliberately false.

Global Warming Alarmists are Overrun by the Facts.  The global warming alarmists continue to go about their business — which is minding everyone else's business — while their yarn keeps fraying.  Their latest problem:  a study that says nature, not man, drives climate.

Ex-Australian PM John Howard sticks it to the greenies.  "Climate change" has become a "substitute religion" for people with a "nakedly political" agenda which has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in economic growth and wealth redistribution.  Well we knew this.  But how how nice it is to hear it from the mouth of a statesman as distinguished as former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, whose blistering speech last night at the Global Warming Policy Foundation you can read in full here.

Kerry 'Amazed' That Some Americans Still Don't Grasp Urgency of Global Warming.  Secretary of State John Kerry expressed his frustration Tuesday with the fact that even in the United States, "a very educated country," there are those who do not recognize the urgency of combating global warming.  Addressing the D.C. Greening Embassies Forum, which encourages the "greening" of foreign mission in Washington, Kerry took aim at those who challenge the notion that the science is settled when it comes to climate change.

Obama orders government to prepare for impact of global warming.  President Obama issued an executive order Friday [11/1/2013] directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.  The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build "resilience" against major storms and other weather extremes.  For example, the president's order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

The Editor says...
By now it should be obvious:  Obama's goal is to make everything more expensive.  Electricity, gasoline, medical insurance, and, as we see here, everything else.  In order to justify preparations for the "impact of global warming," Mr. Obama would have to prove that there is (or will be) any global warming, and prove that one or two degrees of warming would be hazardous.  Neither he nor anyone else will never accomplish such a goal.  As usual, Mr. Obama is meddling in everybody's business for no reason except to impede capitalism.

Al Gore Strikes Out Again.  [Scroll down]  On the science, his project is riddled with mistakes.  For example, he says that a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) causes dangerous global warming.  But the geologic record shows the exact opposite:  CO2 rises after the planet warms, mainly due to the oceans releasing CO2 held in solution at lower temperatures.  Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, consultant meteorologist and former research scientist with Environment Canada, adds, "The earth's climate has not warmed in 17 years according to the UK Met Office.  We may not see warming of the climate by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius in next 50 to 100 years."

Computer Games and Global Warming.  [Scroll down]  Not only do the models disagree with each other, but they disagree with the Earth.  Top climate scientist Kevin Trenberth says that "the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models."  An objective observer would conclude that climate models are interesting laboratory curiosities that need a lot more work.  But these models are the basis of predictions of global warming doom.  We are supposed to believe that the science is solid, and that practically every scientist agrees that unless we quickly switch to solar and wind energy, terrible things will happen.  It's all pathetic nonsense.  The scientists who believe in the computerized predictions of doom have suspended their critical facilities in favor of the thrill of participating in a crusade.

What about the polar bears? Disconnect between predictions and observations.  With all the talk this week about future climate — the global warming imagined by IPCC crystal ball models, that is — the focus for many is rightly on the gulf between predictions and observations that have taken place so far.  This follows on reminders a few weeks ago of the many failed predictions that we would have seen an "ice-free Arctic" by now.

Verbatim "Climate" Journalism.  On September 27 I was reading my Wall Street Journal as usual when I turned the page to read the following headline:  "U.N. Affirms Human Role in Global Warming."  There is no human role in global warming and there is no global warming.  The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for the past seventeen years.

Global Warming: The Biggest Lie Exposed.  I will never understand the kind of thinking behind a lie so big that it became an international fraud and swindle.  I cannot understand why an international organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) operating under the umbrella of the United Nations, was permitted to issue reports of an imminent threat to the Earth, to mankind, that a freshman student of meteorology would know were false. [...] Well, of course, they were wrong.  The so-called "science" on which they were based was idiotic.  It focused primarily on carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called "greenhouse gases", claiming they were trapping heat while being produced by all manner of human activity related to generating energy with coal, oil, and natural gas.

Global Warming Alarmism Wrecks European Economy.  Many Europeans complain about their high energy costs, largely due to their increasing dependence on renewables — the most costly energy sources.  But European political parties as well as a majority of people still want government to promote costly options, especially wind and solar power.  This is killing European economies.  Electricity costs in Europe are more than double the cost of electricity in the U.S.  High electricity costs make it difficult for businesses to operate if they need a lot of electricity.

Selling Global Warming — Again.  The first thing to say about this report is the wording.  The very fact that the words 'global warming' and even 'climate change' are used signals an immediate problem.  For a start, there is always climate change in that the climate always changes.  Secondly, there have been many previous periods of systematic climate change — sometimes of very long timescales.  Finally, the fact that there is persistent — and man-made — global warming seems to be taken for granted.  The last point — on the given nature of global warming — is strange because even though many argue that there is a 'scientific consensus' on global warming, there are nevertheless literally hundreds of well-known and established scientists who challenge the data and evidence behind such claims.

Global Warming Believers Are Feeling the Heat.  On Friday [9/27/2013] the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming.  Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear:  the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report actually says.

New Climate Study Blows Away Anthropogenic Causation.  Ahead of the soon to be released UN IPCC report, much of which has been leaked and destroyed already, and of which Nature stated that were "out of date by the time they hit the street", a new peer-reviewed report has been released that thrashes the Warmists and their Blamestorming of Mankind for releasing GHGs.  The report is strong enough that Warmists immediately trotted out their "anti-science" meme without reading it.

Summary of NIPCC's Findings.    ·   Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.
  ·   Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3 to 1.1°C, almost 50% of which must already have occurred.
  ·   A few tenths of a degree of additional warming, should it occur, would not represent a climate crisis.
  ·   Model outputs published in successive IPCC reports since 1990 project a doubling of CO2 could cause warming of up to 6°C by 2100.  Instead, global warming ceased around the end of the twentieth century and was followed (since 1997) by 16 years of stable temperature.

Climategate II: Scientists pushed to hide data.  Emails leaked to the AP show the U.S. and other governments pushed scientists preparing a new UN climate report due out next week to omit or downplay evidence that the earth's atmosphere has stopped warming for the past 15 years.

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years.  Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the w1orld's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.  A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.  Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.

The Editor asks...
If it's the truth, why does it need to be covered up?

Warming lull haunts authors of key climate report.  Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

Bias alert!
(1) Global warming hasn't just "slowed down" — it stopped in 1998.  (2) The use of the word lull indicates an assurance that warming will resume after a short time-out; whereas, it may be the sort of lull that a pendulum experiences at each end of its swing.

The Obama EPA's War on America.  Greenhouse gas emissions are primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas vital to all life on Earth, the "food" that vegetation depends upon.  It plays no role whatever in a "global warming" that is not occurring.  It is emitted by the Earth's many active volcanoes and hot springs.  It is exhaled by humans and land animals.  It is the product of the combustion of hydrocarbons.  As it increased in the atmosphere, the Earth has entered a cooling — not a warming — spell since the late 1990s.  Its atmospheric concentration is a very tiny 0.039 percent by volume.  It is, however, the justification on which much of the EPA's enforcement activities are based.

Global warming report could backfire on environmentalists.  Talk about bad timing.  Last month, environmental activists launched a well-funded new attack on Republican "climate change deniers" in hopes of making global warming a big issue in 2014.  But as the campaign gets underway, a new report from the world's leading climate scientists could leave environmentalists on the defensive, and the "deniers" more confident and assertive.

A science-based rebuttal to global warming alarmism.  Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small.  Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error.  Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded.  Suppose we take a step back and "reconsider" our commitment to fighting climate change?

Don't blame climate change for extreme weather.  President Obama has explicitly linked a warming climate to "more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes."  The White House warned this summer of "increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events that come with climate change."  Yet this is not supported by science.  "General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media," climate scientist Gavin Smith of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies said last month.  "It's this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that's nonsense."

The 50 to 1 Project.  What if I could show you that it's 50 times more expensive to try and STOP climate change than it is to ADAPT to climate change?  Well I can, in less than 10 minutes, right here in this video.

Study: 114 Out Of 117 Global Warming Predictions Wrong.  The Left is habitually on the wrong side of any issue.  I've maintained that if these people were blindly flipping a coin to decide their policy positions, over the long term they'd be right half the time.  Clearly they deliberately choose positions that are carefully calculated to cause harm. [...] They been to the drawing board and they have conspired to promote a lie calculated to cause maximum harm to industrialized nations to fulfill a political agenda.

Global warming is 'no longer a planetary emergency'.  It's official.  The scare is over.  The World Federation of Scientists, at its annual seminars on planetary emergencies, has been advised by its own climate monitoring panel that global warming is no longer a planetary emergency. [...] This year Dr. Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario and chairman of the Federation's permanent monitoring panel on climate, gave the Federation's closing plenary session his panel's confirmation that "Climate change in itself is not a planetary emergency."

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.  Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models.  This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

Global Warming Is Not The World's Top Problem, Energy Is.  Global warming gets all the attention in crisis thinking today but at its heart that is an energy issue too — when anti-science activists in America forced viable alternative energy out of America, it put us firmly on the path of rampant coal usage and higher greenhouse gas emissions.  Then they recognized the perils of coal emissions that were used in place of nuclear power and that solar was still not ready and promoted biofuels.

UN IPCC 95% Sure That All Warming Is Caused By Humans.  Does this mean that the 17 year pause in statistically significant warming, which some data shows has actually been flatlined and even going down since 2000, is Mankind's fault?  Knowing Warmists, the answer would be "yes".  No matter what happens with the weather, they'll jump in their fossil fueled vehicles to head to a rally to Blame Mankind.

State asks insurers: Are you ready for climate change?  Minnesota has joined four other states in requiring its insurance companies to discuss how extensively they've prepared for climate change.  About 70 companies have until Aug. 31 to respond to an eight-question survey.

The Editor says...
The temperature in Dallas changes about 25 or 30 degrees between night and day.  Sometimes the high temperature is at least 100°F. for a week at a time.  How hot would it have to get before the effects of global warming would justify an insurance claim -- in Minnesota?  Insurance provides coverage against unlikely losses.  A tornado might hit Dallas this year, but it won't wipe out every house in town.  So the insurance companies can provide coverage knowing that relatively few people will file claims.  Global warming, on the other hand, is a change with a projected rate of one or two degrees per century, and right now the global warming rate is zero.  In other words, if it ever happens, we will have had plenty of warning.  The whole idea of demanding proof of readiness from the insurance companies has only two purposes, as far as I can tell:  [#1]  It is harrassment of the insurance companies, which are second only to oil companies as the liberals' most reviled villain, and [#2]  it is an attempt to substantiate liberals' claims that global warming causes everything, when in reality there is no global warming and therefore it has caused nothing.

Global warming scare is dying.  It's been a tough week for the global warming purists.  They are getting blowback in Germany, where people are not only getting sick and tired of paying more for electricity — the same strategy that has been destroying the morale of Ontarians paying higher bills — but because people in rural parts of the country are getting increasingly restless as the government insists on building more of those wind energy monstrosities.

EPA Endangerment Finding:  At the time of the endangerment finding there were several dozen global climate models, now there are at least 73.  The US has 19.  One climate model is sufficient — if it has been validated.
  •   EPA offers no direct physical evidence that greenhouse gases are causing significant global warming or the dire future hazards.
  •   EPA relies heavily on global climate models for forecasts of future harm from increasing temperatures.
  •   From 1990 (first IPCC report) to the 2009 EF, the EPA and the scientific organizations upon which it relies have failed to produce a valid model.
  •   Two decades is twice the time it took the Apollo team to model how to land men on the moon and bring them back, and to successfully complete the mission.
  •   Without direct physical evidence or a valid model, the EPA cannot establish causation — that greenhouse gases are responsible for significant global warming or climate change.
  •   The failure to validate a model is recognized by the IPCC because after the 1990 report the IPCC shifted from using the scientifically proper term "model predictions" to "model projections."
  •   The term "model projections" is scientifically nebulous.
  •   All studies based on the models that have not been validated are scientifically nebulous, such as those that claim dire future weather events.
  •   Climate change has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. The EPA has produced no evidence that it can successfully explain natural climate change.
  •   Without understanding the natural causes of climate change, the EPA cannot scientifically understand the human influence on climate.

Short Meteorological Memories.  By the time the global warming hoax was in its final days, we were being told that mid-winter blizzards were signs of it.  Now the charlatans have switched their message, calling it "climate change" and this is so bogus that it defies description.  Of course the climate changes!

Rebranding Climate Change as a Public Health Issue.  To most people, climate change means melting snowcaps and helpless polar bears sweltering under escalating temperatures.  But most of the world's populations aren't likely to see an iceberg in their lifetimes, much less a stranded polar bear in the wild.  Which explains why the dangers of these environmental changes haven't exactly earned high priority on most people's list of attention-worthy crises.

Bias alert:
Polar bears are not sweltering as they sit on the polar ice, of which there is plenty.  There are no "dangers" associated with miniscule (and almost unmeasurably small) changes in the climate, except the danger of mysanthropic environmentalist socialism.

American Geophysical Union Scraps Science, Now Faith Based.  If you realize that the story is not really about global warming, but rather about changing the composition of the atmosphere, it becomes easy to understand why the believers are not disturbed by the fact that global warming, as measured by surface temperature, stopped 16 years ago.  They easily find other scientific theories to buttress their faith.  They ignore or discredit any science that challenges their faith.  They tell us that if we don't stop adding carbon dioxide to the air, we will have extreme weather and the oceans will become acidified.  The polar bears will die.  The wine will lose its flavor.  We will catch exotic diseases.  If one theory of doom is refuted, or becomes boring, there are plenty of others to take its place.

Democrat Senator: Republicans Caused The Oklahoma Tornado By Not Believing in Global Warming.  One of the great ironies of the global warming debate is that the people who are skeptical of the phenomenon are the ones who make the science-based arguments, while the true believers who incessantly rant about "scientific consensus" all too often sound like this.

Exclusive: China Translates 1,200-Page Rebuttal to Climate Change Agenda.  Breitbart News can exclusively report on Tuesday night [6/11/2013] that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated and published a Chinese edition of two massive climate change volumes originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011.

Effects of C02 on Nitrous Oxide Emissions.  One of the main sources of nitrous oxide is agriculture, which accounts for almost half of its emissions in some countries (Pipatti, 1997).  And with N2O originating from microbial [nitrogen] cycling in soil — mostly from aerobic nitrification or from anaerobic denitrification (Firestone and Davidson, 1989) — there is a concern that CO2-induced increases in carbon input to soil, together with increasing [nitrogen] input from other sources, will increase substrate availability for denitrifying bacteria and may result in higher N2O emissions from agricultural soils as the air's CO2 content continues to rise.

Environmental Rules Delayed as White House Slows Reviews.  The White House has blocked several Department of Energy regulations that would require appliances, lighting and buildings to use less energy and create less global-warming pollution, as part of a broader slowdown of new antipollution rules issued by the Obama administration.

Semantics alert!
Global warming is not pollution.  Neither is global cooling.  Global warming is merely an excuse to expand the federal government -- even though global warming stopped sometime around 1998.

Gore: Global Warming a 'Threat to Our Survival' Just Like World War II.  Comparing "global warming" to World War II, former Vice President Al Gore said America should "mobilize" to combat climate change and put a "price on carbon pollution." [...] "We can save 90 percent of the energy saved being used in most buildings — 25 to 30 percent of all the global warming pollution in the world comes from poorly insulated, poorly constructed buildings.  The retrofitting of our buildings and our infrastructure, that's the way to create jobs and the installation of the renewable energy systems."

The Editor says...
There's "global warming pollution" canard again.

Time to stop arguing about climate change, World Bank says.  The world should stop arguing about whether humans are causing climate change and start taking action to stop dangerous temperature rises, the president of the World Bank said on Wednesday [6/19/2013].

The Editor asks...
What action is required to stop that which has already stopped itself?

Has the climate agenda run out of steam?  One of the best levers the progressives have found to muscle us toward more and bigger government is the issue of climate change, formerly known as global warming.  After all, as individuals we are powerless to change the weather, but progressives have convinced us that if we all pull together (and stop barbecuing ribs!) we will be able to harness Mother Nature.  Such true believers are just as deluded as the advisers of King Canute who thought he could stop the tide just by commanding it to do so.

The Left's War on Science.  The environmentalists, like the Communists, believe that human beings have total control over the environment and that the environment determines all.  Warmunism, like Communism, originates not from science, but from ideology.  The Communists divided industry into two types by ideological classification; the good cooperative Socialist industry and the bad competitive Capitalist industry.  The Warmunists similarly ideologically classify two types of industry; environmentally conscious green technology and dirty non-socially conscious brown technology.

'Trougher' Yeo recants on global warming.  We're going to see a lot of this in the coming weeks and months:  "the even though I've been proved completely wrong, I was right all along really" non-apologetic retraction from all those former full-time climate alarmists — e[.]g[.,] the Met Office; Oxford's Professor Myles Allen; even certain of my Telegraph blogging colleagues — who are now trying to escape from the collapsing edifice of the great AGW scam while trying to salvage as much professional dignity as they can muster.

Chevron Defies California On Carbon Emissions.  Chevron is leading a lobbying and public relations campaign to undercut the California mandate aimed at curbing global warming, two years after the state started phasing it in.  Research on commercially viable climate-friendly products has come to naught, stymied by the poor economics of coaxing hydrocarbons from plants' stubborn cell walls, according to Chevron officials.

Human-Caused Climate Change Less Than Expected.  President Obama is determined to do something about global warming, telling Congress in his State of the Union address that if they won't act on it, he will.  The president's refrain is familiar, but unfortunate.  Obama continues to ignore new science suggesting that the threat posed by human-caused climate change is substantially less than previously thought.

Numeracy in Climate Discussions — how long will it take to get a 6 deg. C rise in temperature?  In articles like [the one] by Sarah Kent in the Wall Street Journal on April 18, 2013, we see a graph with a 6 C temperature rise by 2050 — if we don't reduce "carbon intensity."  Indeed, a 6 C temperature rise may well be cause for concern.  But anyone with a little background in mathematics and physics should be able to understand how ridiculous a number like 6 C is.

Climate consensus in free-fall.  The trenches of anthropogenic global warming are now mostly left populated by green ideologues, a left-dominated media, and bureaucrats who are usually the last to grasp reality.

Sorry global warming. We're just not that into you.  [Scroll down]  [The writer wonders] how it is that the greenies have been able to cause so much mayhem for so long.  I hardly need to list for you here the many terrible things that have been done in the name of "saving the planet" and "combating climate change".  We're talking everything from the trashing of our beautiful landscape with wind farms to the thousands of deaths caused by fuel poverty to the sabotage of the global economy.

"Climate change" cools off.  These are not happy times for the Church of Global Warming, which has been trying to repackage its manufactured hysteria as "climate change" for several years.  But according to the New York Times on Thursday [3/7/2013], we've actually come full circle to where we began in the Seventies:  global cooling.

Obama eyes taking millions of acres to save habitat from global warming.  A large purchase in Florida's Everglades, for example, is aimed in part at preserving grasses that can help prevent rising water from flooding the area and destroying animal habitat.  The new strategy, produced by several federal and state agencies and tribal groups, would expand that program to protect habitat under global warming pressure and used by everything from butterflies and robins to foxes and even coral.  For example, more habitat for grizzly bears would be set aside so they can move north as their habitat warms.

Obama admin looking to set aside millions of acres for habitat preservation.  The federal government already manages nearly one third of the surface area of the United States, but inefficient federal bureaucrats, dependent on DC for their funding and often motivated by political externalities, do not make the best environmental stewards — far from it.

Federal plan aims to help wildlife adapt to climate change.  Developed along with state and tribal authorities, the strategy seeks to preserve species as global warming alters their historical habitats and, in many cases, forces them to migrate across state and tribal borders.  Over the next five years, the plan establishes priorities for what will probably be a decades-long effort.  One key proposal is to create wildlife "corridors" that would let animals and plants move to new habitats.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Daniel M. Ashe said such routes could be made through easements and could total "much more than 1 million acres."  The plan does not provide an estimate of the cost.

The Editor says...
"The plan does not provide an estimate of the cost" because the cost is inestimable.  Once again, if you questioned these people, I believe you would find them all to be firm believers in Darwin's "survival of the fittest."  Yet they seem to think wild animals need "corridors" to get to their new homes — assuming the animals can detect any climate change and assuming they elect to move.  These "corridors" will naturally fall right across the land with the greatest petroleum reserves, preventing Big Oil from making money.  This is nothing more or less than another big government land grab.  The people who come up with these ideas don't care about killing jobs and seizing private land.

Are ice ages scheduled by government committees?
Administration's New Climate Report: Next Ice Age Has Now Been Delayed Indefinitely'.  A federal advisory committee appointed by the Obama administration to produce a report on climate change says that if Earth's climate were still "primarily controlled by natural factors" — rather than by man-made global warming — then the next ice age would occur within the next 1,500 years.  But now, because of humans, the committee says, the next ice age has been "delayed indefinitely."

Kerry on Global Warming: 'The Science Is Screaming at All of Us and Demands Action'.  In a statement marking Earth Day, Secretary of State John Kerry pledges to deal "responsibly with the clear and present danger of climate change."  The former presidential candidate also notes the "fragile planet we share with the rest of humanity and which we must protect for future generations."

The Editor says...
Science does not scream.  Mr. Kerry and his earth-worshiping ilk seem to believe they are more powerful and more influential than they really are, and they underestimate the durability of the earth.

Climate consensus in free-fall.  [Scroll down]  As it turns out, even what we have been sold as a climate science "consensus" per se is a myth.  In truth, public-money-grubbing researchers, green social engineers, politicized UN bureaucrats and corrupt data fiddlers apart, it has always been thus.  Just as the 28-Gate scandal eventually revealed the 28 'experts' that advised the BBC to pin its AGW colours to the alarmist mast was nothing but a green lobby group, so the alleged climate consensus looks increasingly, er... 'fracked'.

Global warming can be dangerous.  But, so far as we know, only politically and financially.
A Citizen's Guide to Global Warming Evidence.  Chances are, that if you are worked up, it is because you are mistaken.  If you are like most people — and most people are — then you have inappropriately thought that certain evidence implied the truth of dangerous man-made global warming (or AGW, for short) whereas it actually does not.  You are therefore unnecessarily worried.  Here, then, is a brief FAQ which you can cut and paste on your energy-efficient refrigerator, or pass out to "activist" friends.

The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama's Global Warming Claims.  President Barack Obama in his second inauguration address called for new action to "respond to the threat of climate change."  Taking advantage of the bully pulpit and a huge national audience, Obama mustered his best possible arguments in a brief case for why addressing global warming is supposedly necessary.  Unfortunately for global warming alarmists, Obama's case was exceptionally flimsy.  Then again, Obama did not have much to work with, as the overall case for global warming alarmism is exceptionally flimsy.

Waxman: Obama Should Regulate Oil Refineries, Household Appliances to Stop Global Warming.  Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said the Obama administration should regulate oil refineries, household appliances, and even renegotiate climate treaties if Congress does not pass legislation dealing with global warming.  "The president will be taking action by executive order through his administration," Waxman said at a press conference on Friday [2/15/2013] unveiling his Safe Climate Caucus, which will work to pressure House Republicans to take up a climate change initiative.

EPA's carbon regs not based on sound science.  Over the past 50 years, there were more new state record lows set than record highs.  In fact, roughly 70 percent of the current state record highs were set before 1940.

Obama Unveils His Economy-Killing Cap-And-Tax Plan.  A nonexistent crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and in justifying his proposal for a cap-and-tax scheme, President Obama claimed in his State Of The Union that "the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15."  He was lying.  The fact is, according to new data released quietly last October by Britain's Met Office, the world's natural post-Ice Age warming trend stopped about 16 years ago.  From the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

Government issues warnings, but are rising temperatures a health risk?  The report concludes that "Climate change is already affecting the American people" and that US communities will face "economic or health-related challenges."  Sadly, common sense is hard to find in the 1146-page document.  The report is driven by the misguided ideology of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate.  According to Climatism, Earth's climate has been unchanging for thousands of years, but carbon dioxide emissions from human society are now causing dangerous global warming.  Further, any change in Earth's climate must be bad for US citizens.  The document uses the word "extreme" more than 600 times to create an alarming picture of the future.

Climate assessment delivers a grim overview.  The Obama administration has implemented several regulations to curtail emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists say have stoked global warming.  But the president seldom speaks of climate change.  The White House declined to comment on the National Climate Assessment report, saying it had not had a chance to review it.

The Editor says...
The article above appears in the LA Times, and it reeks with bias.  The writer publicizes false White House statements without challenging them:  The White House (ignoring the personification) has all day and all night to review every report published by anybody, especially when it pertains to big-government policy like so-called global warming.

Global Warming Alarmists Pick and Choose Data to Support Theory.  The "think globally" people become very parochial when the global warming story isn't as scary sounding as the local one.  Climate change activists took the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) recent report showing 2012 to be the warmest on record for the continental United States, did a little geographic sleight of hand, and spun it into a Chicken Little story on global warming.

Now even Pravda admits the 'global warming' jig is up.  If you didn't know better, you'd almost get the impression that AGW theory has been so crushingly falsified that hard-headed newspaper executives, even ones at papers as painfully right-on as the New York Times, just aren't prepared to fund its promulgation any more.  What this means for similarly overstaffed environment desks at other left-wing newspapers one can scarcely begin to imagine.

The crazy climate change obsession that's made the Met Office a menace.  From its infamous 'barbecue summer' washout of 2009 to the snowbound winter it failed to predict in 2010 and the recent forecast-defying floods, our £200 million-a-year official weather forecaster has become a national joke.  But of all its recent embarrassments, none come close to matching the Met Office's latest one.  Without fanfare — apparently in the desperate hope no one would notice — it has finally conceded what other scientists have known for ages:  there is no evidence that 'global warming' is happening.

Climate Science vs Politics: The Road Ahead.  There is good news and bad news about climate.  The good news is that science evidence has made it quite clear that the human contribution to a possible global warming is minor; in fact it cannot even be identified in the data record.  The bad news is that the media and politicians pay no attention whatsoever to the science and are marching ahead full-speed with efforts to control CO2 emissions — thereby hurting the economy, destroying jobs, and stunting economic growth.

Global warming and an inconvenient truth.  To put it mildly, it is a matter of enormous public interest that the Met Office has revised its predictions of global warming, whispering that new data suggest there will be none for the next five years.  After all, the projection implies that by 2017, despite a colossal increase in carbon emissions, there will have been no rise in the planet's surface temperature for almost two decades.  Why, then, did the Met Office choose to sneak out this intriguing information on Christmas Eve, knowing there would be no newspapers the next day?

Global warming, the tool of the West.  For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations.  Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living.

Global warming has stalled, admits Met Office.  The great global warming debate was blown wide open again yesterday when the Met Office predicted cooler than expected temperatures for the next five years.  The Met Office, one of the top cheerleaders for the man-made climate change camp, said global temperatures are likely to be lower than it forecast in December 2011.

Does NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) keep two separate sets of climate books for the USA?  What started as an oddity noted for a single month now seems clearly to be systemic over a two-year period.  On the eve of what will likely be a pronouncement from NCDC on 2012 being the "hottest year ever", and since what I found is systemic and very influential to the press and to the public, I thought I should make my findings widely known now.

Tesla Motors ... Another Elite Theme in Collapse?  Of course, a cursory examination of global warming evidence brings us smack up against an inconvenient truth ... that global warming probably doesn't exist and that even if it did, the amount of manmade carbon in the atmosphere (versus water based greenhouse elements) won't affect the atmosphere's balance one way or another.  And that offers the question ... Why bother to make electric autos?

Five fatal flaws the greenhouse effect "theory" MUST address.  The GH hypothesis is dead.  The GHE paradigm is therefore also dead, as is AGW.  All the current, and much touted climate modelling that is ALL based on GHE failed hypothesis is also now dead.  They are all dead, because the GHE hypothesis has failed beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Piltdown Warning.  The left loves to muster the armies of official "science" to discount conservative values and principles.  Man-made global warming, of course, is one example.  Natural cycles of warming and cooling are indisputable. [...] Man-made global warming simply fills a need for statists who wish to grow rich and powerful off their demands for power over our lives.

Global Warming? Not a snowball's chance.  By "global warming", I mean, of course the kind of runaway, unprecedented, catastrophic warming which George Monbiot et al have been bleating on about for the last two or three decades.

Man-made global warming:  Even the IPCC admits the jig is up.  [A] leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time:  that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede.

New Report: Man-made Global Warming Is a Farce.  The report is actually a massive compilation of scientific studies and news articles from both public and private sources, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  Together they indicate claims of "global warming," "climate change" and "climate disruption" are nothing but a ruse to usher in massive carbon taxes and crippling regulations.  Like Pavlov's dog, politicians are conditioned to react to any harsh weather event by drooling for higher taxes, notes the study.  Naturally, delegates at the UN conference were not interested in the conclusions of the CFACT study.

Obama's Next Move: the Global Warming Tax.  And carrying the water in support of this global scheme are the media, selecting their talking points from a recent World Bank report claiming global temperatures are likely to increase by more than 6 degrees, leading to "extreme heat waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise."  Given that since 1850 the earth's temperature has only warmed 1.2 degrees (with 88 percent of that warming occurring before 1940), and that the global average temperature has not risen since 1998, a six-degree hike flies in the face scientific sanity.

Environmentalist: Oil Industry as Bad as Apartheid.  The theory of manmade climate change has fallen on hard times in recent years:  The Climategate scandal, ongoing questions about the quality of the science behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming, further scandals such as Glaciergate, and demands by the United Nations for as much as $76 trillion in wealth transfers from the industrialized nations to the developing world, have done much to undermine public belief in, and toleration for, the theory.

Myths and Facts about Global Warming.  Myth 1:  Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.  Fact:  The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011.  The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941.  Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001.

No worries guys, addressing climate change will only cost us $131 Trillion.  The UN came out with another super cool climate change report and the WSJ has a lovely little video about it:  [Video clip]  So how much will it cost to address climate change?  $131 trillion between now and 2050.  That's $131,000,000,000,000.  The entire world's GDP was $85 trillion last year!  A few years ago, the climate change estimate was $98 trillion.  Now it's $131 trillion.  What's it gonna be a few years from now?

The Editor says...
What does it mean to "address climate change?"  Is the U.N. going to stop the weather from changing?  Is the U.N. going to take control of the Sun?  Is the U.N. going to make it impossible for polar ice to melt?  Even if they can round it up, what will all that money buy?  [#2] Why does the U.N. exist?  [#3] Notice that the estimated cost to "address" climate change — which is a weasel word to excuse their failure when they fail to eliminate climate change or any of its effects — is increasing by trillions of dollars per year.  This gives the "problem" a false sense of urgency:  If it isn't addressed right now it will cost trillions more!  When you have to ask, "What's the rush?", the answer is probably deception.

U.N. Climate Summit:  A Meaningless Meeting Of Useless People.  Despite the incessant screeching demands that we must save our planet by severely cutting our greenhouse gas emissions, it's obvious that man's impact on the climate is not creating an existential crisis.  Every harsh weather event is blamed by activists, politicians, reporters, editors, and celebrities as evidence that anthropogenic global warming is going to destroy Earth.  Of course these are often the same people who tell us we cannot take a single weather event, such as a cold snap or an unusually heavy snow, and extrapolate from that there is no man-made warming.  They want man's greenhouse gas emissions to be an existential crisis.

"Break Their Will".  When a dog curls its lip and bares its teeth, you know what sort of dog you're dealing with.  One such dog curled its lip in Massachusetts recently.  His name is David Ismay — possibly related to the Bruce Ismay of Titanic fame, but hold that thought.  This Ismay wants to "break the will" — his words — of people who rely on gasoline to power their cars and oil and natural gas to heat their homes, in order to "combat climate change."  And he was in a position to do just that, being until just recently a government worker and having lots of armed government workers available to enforce whatever he decreed as the Undersecretary for Climate Change — yes, such an office exists — of the state of Massachusetts.  A state nominally under the governorship of a Republican — Charlie Barker — it bears pointing out. [...] Ismay — who made $130,000 annually as a government worker, roughly twice as much as the average American family earns — was eventually forced to resign, which is good.

Latest warmist scheme:  Record 'climate change' as cause of death on death certificates.  Perhaps inspired by the success of Coronavirus fearmongering in impoverishing the formerly prosperous West, global warming enthusiasts are beginning to agitate to list "climate change" as the cause of death on death certificates.  The widely observed practice of listing Coronavirus as the cause of death for anyone who died with it, not necessarily of it, has worked wonders in scaring people into accepting previously unheard-of abrogation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.  The seed for this propaganda offensive was just planted in a spinoff publication of The Lancet, the formerly prestigious British medical journal that has fallen to the forces of political correctness.

Why Climate Change Isn't Science.  Global warming appealed to the press's appetite for calamity and became an instant hit.  The headlines wrote themselves:  The poles will melt!  The oceans will rise!  Lakes and rivers will dry up!  Farmlands will become deserts!  Millions will starve to death!  This was big.  Government would have to join the fight.  In the nineties, environmentalists switched their emphasis to "Climate Change" This was a marketing move.  Global warming could credibly be blamed for warming, but climate change could be blamed for anything.  If hurricanes increase one year, that's evidence of climate change.  If they decrease the next year, well, that's climate change too.  Droughts are caused by climate change, but so are exceptional rains.  Warmer winters prove climate change, but so do colder winters.  "Climate Change" was disaster gold.  It couldn't be disproved.  Which is exactly why it's not science.

Warming Air Turns Out To Be Hysterics.  It is 30 years this past week that James Hansen, then well into the first of more than three decades as head of the NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)-Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified to a Senate committee that the then-current heat wave in Washington was caused by the relationship between "the greenhouse effect and observed warming." [...] Mr. Hansen also predicted exceptional warming in the Southeast and Midwest of the United States, which has not occurred either.  As his predictions were battered and defied by the facts, Mr. Hansen reinforced his expressions of ecological gloom and in 2007 predicted that all Greenland's ice would melt and that ocean levels would rise by seven metres within 100 years.  We have only had 11 years, but no ice has been lost by Greenland, other than what melts every summer and then forms again, and water levels have not moved appreciably.  Undaunted, Professor Hansen pressed on like the Ancient Mariner, or Captain Bligh.  Hurricanes and tornadoes, at least in the United States, would become stronger, a prediction repeated by the American left's favourite weatherman, Senator Bernie Sanders.  None of it has occurred, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, despite the strength of last year's hurricanes in Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico.  In any event, Hansen's predictions have all bombed and he has not recanted.

Washington Governor Claims 'Just 59 Days' To Save Children From Global Warming.  Washington state's Democratic Governor Jay Inslee warned there was [sic] "just 59 days" to save future generations from "an endless cycle of crop-killing droughts one year, and rivers spilling their banks the next."  Inslee went on a lengthy Twitter rant in efforts to convince the state legislature to pass legislation to tax carbon dioxide emissions.  Washington residents voted down Inslee's last carbon tax plan by a wide margin in 2016.

Climate Change:  California Hypocrisy Turned up to 11.  Readers may be vaguely aware that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and two other AGs filed suit again ExxonMobil alleging that "they knew" about climate change decades ago, but have been practicing "deception" ever since.  These lawsuits all came with subpoena demands for thousands of pages of documents, no doubt hoping to turn up ... what exactly?  This is a transparent attempt to turn policy disagreements into legal culpability.  In fact there is considerable evidence that this legal action was part of a political strategy hit upon by environmentalists to replicate the experience of tobacco litigation.  ExxonMobil has not been taking this attack supinely.

The Folly of Global Climate Forecasting.  I don't mind an inaccurate forecast.  I'm very used to them, especially in the winter in the southeastern United States.  I'm sure it happens all over the U.S. and the world every day.  Even with all of our advanced technology, weather forecasting is a very tricky business.  However, the missed forecast with this recent weather event highlights the kind of folly that is behind all of the doom and gloom predictions coming from Al Gore's disciples.  Even people who know what they are talking about have a difficult time predicting accurately the local weather just days, and sometimes even hours, in advance — yet the climate-change "faithful" ("fools" is more appropriate) would have us drastically change our energy policy and enact crippling emission controls — which would do virtually nothing to change the climate — based on their dire predictions about the global climate that are decades and sometimes centuries in advance.

Climate Predictions — Doubling Down on Stupid.  If the "science is settled" regarding global warming, climate change, extreme weather, or whatever it goes by these days, why are past predictions not more accurate?  Weather forecasting, although frequently off the mark, is usually fairly accurate.  If snow is predicted, it typically falls.  It may be a few inches more or less than predicted but it isn't sunny and 80 degrees on a day a major snowstorm is forecast.  Yet climate, which is a longer-term measure of weather, cannot be predicted with any more accuracy than flipping a coin or throwing dice. [...] The left has corrupted climate in the cause of wealth redistribution, making their braying and doomsaying nothing but noise.  This may get them a few votes, but will not prevent the next heat wave, snowstorm, or hurricane.

Meteorologists, the Professional Fake Forecasters.  Meteorologists are in the business of getting predictions wrong.  Why else does anyone watch the weather news — except for the hilarity of watching them get it wrong day after day after day?  They predict sunshine, grab your umbrella.

Would You Bet Your Paycheck on a Weather Forecast?  Meteorologists can't forecast the weather much beyond 48 hours as the degree of accuracy diminishes rapidly.  Yet the same weather agencies, often using the same computer models, have since 1990, said with almost absolute certainty that their 50 and 100-year forecasts are correct.  They maintain this illusion today even though all their long-term forecasts have been wrong.  The global warming deception worked because most people don't know the difference between weather, climate, and meteorology.

Feds knew blizzard forecast was exaggerated — but didn't want to confuse us.  Fears of a massive blizzard led officials to close city public schools and for above-ground train service to be stopped — but in the end, only about 7 inches fell in Central Park.  After announcing that snow could reach record levels in the city, NWS meteorologists in New York and other Northeast cities held a conference call Monday afternoon [3/13/2017] about computer models that dramatically cut predicted totals.  But they decided to continue forecasting deep snow, claiming that they didn't change their forecast for fear people would mistakenly think the storm was no longer dangerous.

The Editor says...
The situation above demonstrates the state of the art in meteorology:  Snowfall cannot be accurately predicted a few days in advance, even with the fastest computers and best software in the world.  Tornados can't be forecast at all, and the prediction of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions is just as uncertain.  But these are the same people who are absolutely sure that by January 1, 2100, the average worldwide temperature will be two degrees higher than it is today.  That's still over 80 years from now.  We are all supposed to have such confidence in the 80-year long-term forecast that we would be willing to forego air conditioning, internal combustion engines and plentiful electricity.  We are also supposed to believe their claims that the atmosphere can go into a thermal runaway condition, making the earth progressively hotter every year after a certain (dangerously close!) threshhold has been reached.  Personally, I'm willing to leave the air conditioner on and take my chances with the weather rather than taking my chances with a tax-and-spend world-wide totalitarian bureaucracy.

Global warming could stave off next ice age for 100,000 years.  Global warming is likely to disrupt a natural cycle of ice ages and contribute to delaying the onset of the next big freeze until about 100,000 years from now, scientists said on Wednesday [1/13/2016].

The Editor says...
Again, how does anyone know what the weather is going to be like in a thousand centuries, when it can't be accurately predicted a week in advance?

One of the longest running climate prediction blunders has disappeared from the Internet.  Readers of WUWT and millions of climate skeptics have read this article before, and in fact it is likely one of the most cited articles ever that illustrates the chutzpah and sheer hubris on display from a climate scientist who was so certain he could predict the future with certainty.

Can't Predict a Hurricane but Global Warming is a Certainty?  Weather and climate are not the same.  According to NASA, weather represents atmospheric conditions over a short period of time compared to climate which is measured over relatively long periods of time.  Both however use computer models attempting to predict the future.  As NOAA's Climate.gov website explains, "Models help us to work through complicated problems and understand complex systems."  Indeed.  Weather and climate are incredibly complex, influenced by sea, air, land, and the sun.  It is therefore no surprise that predicting the track of a hurricane, considered weather as it is short-term, is quite challenging.

A Calculator Just Whupped UN Supercomputers at Accurately Modeling Climate.  Climate is complex.  This is true both in the conventional "wow, this is hard to figure out!" sense, and in the technical sense that people mean when they talk about "complex systems theory."  It's so sensitive to the initial assumptions that it's never feasible to compute exactly how the system will behave. Sometimes this is called "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," or SDIC.  This is basically why we can't predict if it will rain on Monday, yet we can confidently predict that it'll be colder in Boulder in December than it was in July.  The difference here is between what is exactly true, and what is statistically true.

The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This Winter Coming.  Surprised by how tough this winter has been?  You're in good company:  Last fall the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that temperatures would be above normal from November through January across much of the Lower 48 states. [...] "Not one of our better forecasts," admits Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center's acting director.  The center grades itself on what it calls the Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfection) to -50 (monkeys throwing darts would have done better).  October's forecast for the three-month period of November through January came in at -22.

The 2013 Hurricane Season That Wasn't.  Dr. Phil Klotzbach and Dr. Bill Gray of Colorado State University, two guys who really know this stuff, called for a 2013 Atlantic hurricane season with 18 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 4 intense hurricanes (cat 3 or greater).  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that the season would be above average and possibly hyper-active.  Weather Services International released their 2013 forecast in early April, calling for 16 named storms, 9 hurricanes and 5 major hurricanes (cat 3 or greater). [...] Reality check: This year there have been 10 tropical storms, two hurricanes, and no major hurricanes.

Hot Lies Disputed by Cold Facts.  I have always found a stark contrast in the way the forecasts of meteorologists on television and radio are limited in accuracy to about a week and beyond that become more speculative while the claims about global warming are always stated in decades.  For example, the polar ice caps were supposed to have all melted by now.  The daily forecasts are formulated based on sophisticated meteorological satellites.  The global warming claims are all based on computer models, not empirical observation and data.

Government Weather and Climate Science is a Proven Disaster.  A few weeks before Obama's announcement, on March 18 in Exeter, England, another WMO member, the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO), held a meeting to discuss the unusual weather and try and understand the "disappointing UK weather over recent years."  In fact, the need for the meeting and the programme indicates how little they know about weather and climate.  What is really disappointing for them is the complete failure of their forecasting.  They need an excuse for failure, but in doing so expose their incompetence.

The weather prophets should be chucked in the deep end.  For more than 20 years now, we have been told that this country was going to get hotter and hotter and hotter, and that global warming was going to change our climate in a fundamental way.  Do you remember that?  We were told that Britain was going to have short, wet winters and long, roasting summers. [...] They said we were never going to have snow again, and that we should prepare for southern England to turn gradually into a Mediterranean world. [...] That's what they said:  the BBC, and all the respectable meteorologists — and I reckon there were tens of thousands of people who took these prophecies entirely seriously.

Our summers will be as hot and dry as 1976, the Met Office said three years ago.  The Met Office has been accused of damaging the UK's tourism industry over its prediction last week that Britain faces the likelihood of a decade of soggy summers — because just three years ago it told us to prepare for repeats of the drought of 1976.  In May 2010 its climate extremes scientist Eleanor Burke warned we would roast in the summer months and be faced with tap water bans.  Yet last week yet another glimpse into the future by Met Office experts and colleagues from leading UK universities suggested rainy summers are on the cards for the foreseeable future.

Climate seers as blind guides.  The science of forecasting is complex.  After 50 years spent studying the issue, I have found there is plenty of experimental evidence that in complex, uncertain situations, experts cannot forecast better than those with little expertise.

Europe, wind, warming... we're slowly waking up to reality.  Fuelled by the predictions of the climate-change-obsessed Met Office (and the the official policy, since 2007, of the similarly fixated EU) that we will have "hotter, drier summers" for decades to come, the agency foretold that the drought conditions of the early spring were likely to last "until Christmas and perhaps beyond".  The prophecy was swiftly followed by the wettest late spring, the wettest summer, the wettest autumn and the wettest Christmas we have ever known — eight months of near-continuous rain and floods amounting to England's wettest year since records began.

In 1972, Cronkite Warned of 'New Ice Age'.  The "brutal" winter is on the attack again, bringing sleet and heavy snow to the mid-Atlantic region.  Previous storms targeted the deep south including Dallas, Texas, and several hammered New England.  By March 4, Boston was just 2 inches away from hitting an all-time record for snow, Boston.com reported.  It's a reality more in keeping with media warnings from the 1970s than today's arguments about global warming.  Then, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, the dean of American journalism, was warning about an "ice age."  Cronkite cited scientific claims that the Earth was cooling and "the full extent of the new ice age won't be reached for 10,000 years."  That's completely different from the media's line today that global warming is settled science.

Cut to winter fuel payment could kill 4,000 people, Labour's own research suggests.  Thousands of pensioners could die if the government proceeds with its plan to cut winter fuel payments for those not on benefits, Labour's own research suggested.  Analysis published in 2017, when Sir Keir Starmer was in the Shadow Cabinet, warned that Conservative plans to cut the fuel allowance for ten million pensioners would increase excess deaths by 3,850 that winter.  The proposal, put forward by Theresa May's government, was dubbed the "single biggest attack on pensioners in a generation in our country".  The report has resurfaced just weeks after Rachel Reeves announced that older people not in receipt of pension credits or other means-tested benefits will no longer receive winter fuel payments from this year onwards.

Have We Entered an Era of Global Cooling?  With all the sound and fury about global warming, an important, and many scientists now assert, more likely scenario is usually ignored — the possibility of far more dangerous global cooling.  It is more dangerous because many more people die due to the cold than the heat.  A 2015 study in the British Medical journal The Lancet found that:  "Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries."  Indeed, history shows that cold periods are far more hazardous than warm times. [...] Yet cities such as Ottawa, Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, and Montreal, municipalities each of which experience cold weather, at times very cold, all essentially ignore the dangerous impacts of cooling in their climate change plans.  Ottawa's Climate Change Master Plan is especially misguided.

Record-Cold and Snowy Weather Cancels Candidate Events Ahead of Iowa Caucuses.  Record-breaking low temperatures and winter storms may complicate Iowa's caucuses as events are canceled and voters question what to do.  While the Associated Press reported that snow was continuing to pile on top of the eight inches that had already fallen outside, some people still made the risky trek out to see Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley in Waukee.

Is the 'manmade' climate crisis a scam?  Unless you're an Eskimo or Russian, winter is a difficult period for most people. [...] Winter confirms why it's a colder planet, not a warmer one, that poses a greater risk to mankind.  Roughly twice as many people die of cold each year than heat (CDC National Centre for Health Statistics).  This is rather awkward for the Net Zero hysterics singing the climate crisis hymn while sticking fingers in their ears at their increasingly erroneous modelling.

Global warming would save lives.  Climate expert Gregory Wrightstone, Executive Director of the C02 Coalition, is exposing the lies of the climate change messaging dominating the mainstream legacy media.  As globalist elites and pro-climate change activists begin concluding their COP28 Meeting on the environment, Wrightstone is sounding the alarm that the push to only green energy is harmful to humanity.  As author of the new book, 'A Very Convenient Warming,' Wrightstone contends that 'global warming would save lives.'  Watch now as LifeSIteNews Senior Correspondent Jim Hale sits one-on-one with Wrighstone and explores the truth behind the global warming agenda and what is really happening with the weather.  [Video clip]

Climate Change Is Not Threatening Human Health.  [Scroll down]  VOA reports that the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared climate change the "single biggest health threat facing humanity."  The first category highlighted is extreme heat.  Again, on the surface, this sounds possible.  VOA writes that this year is "expected to be the hottest on record," and cites a study that claims by 2050 five times more people will die of heat each year if 2°C warming occurs.  However, some of the data used to make the "hottest month/year" claim is suspect, due in part to the urban heat island effect, and a variety of natural factors, like increased water vapor from a massive volcanic eruption, the onset of a powerful El Niño, and increased solar activity.  Concerning the health impact of heat, the clear evidence and data show that cold temperatures kill far more people than hot temperatures and, as a result, overall deaths related to non-optimum temperatures have declined significantly.

History: Cold is Horrifically Bad for Humanity.  Before climate science became politicized, historians called warm periods "climate optima" because Earth's ecosystems and humanity benefited from the blessed warmth.  Conversely, during cold periods, the human condition declined.  There is a strong correlation between the rise and fall of temperature and the fortunes of great civilizations.  After centuries of beneficial warmth during the Roman Warm Period (250 B.C. to A.D. 450), the human condition declined as cooling temperatures led to what is known as the Dark Ages (A.D. 450 to 850).  If you do an internet search for "worst year ever," you will find that the overwhelming consensus is the year A.D. 536.  The worst of the Dark Ages cold centered on that year and was probably associated with a giant volcanic eruption of unknown origin in the previous year.  The awful nature of the Dark Ages cold is particularly well documented in Europe.  There, the population declined to levels not seen since the last cold era, which took place 1,000 years earlier.  Entire areas were depopulated.  In the year 784, one-third of the population perished, according to estimates.

Cold weather kills about ten times as many people as hot weather.
The Lancet's Scientific Chicanery on Mortality Exposed by CO2 Coalition.  A deception perpetrated by The Lancet is another example of how once respected institutions of the scientific community are not above abandoning principle to advance the fearmongering of a planet warming to purportedly dangerous levels.  As reported in the CO2 Coalition's online newsletter, The Lancet published a study showing that cold-related deaths account for 10 times the number of deaths due to heat — a comparison similar to other research findings about the relative danger of temperature extremes.  However, The Lancet pulled a sleight of hand when depicting the data in a chart to accentuate deaths due to heat and diminish those from cold.

When leftists want to scare you about global warming, remind them of this fact.  [C]old kills an estimated twenty times more deaths than warmth.  Why would you fight so hard to reduce a degree-or-two temperature rise when the cold is much more dangerous?  In 27 years, heat killed an average of 12,000 per year, while cold killed over 200,000 per year.

Slight warming in Arctic, sub-Arctic seas boosts biodiversity, study finds.  New research out of Nord University in Norway has found that in areas of the world where average temperatures are warming, redistribution of species, also known as biodiversity, is also occurring — which is a good thing.  Some polar areas and regions around the tropics are said to be seeing a slight warming of temperatures, which is also bringing with it new animal species that are enriching these areas with more life, the paper, published in the journal PNAS, found.  Researchers acquired data from more than 20,000 trawl surveys in the Norwegian and Barents Seas between 1994 and 2020.

The Lancet: cold weather 9x more likely to kill than hot.  This news shouldn't surprise you a bit, but given the global warming hysteria it might still do so.  According to a study published in The Lancet, cold weather is far more deadly than excessive heat.  In fact, for every person in the world who dies due to some heat-related cause, 9 die due to excessive cold.  Common sense and the barest knowledge of history tells us this, and The Lancet's study merely confirms (and amplifies) what every sentient human being already knows.  It's not like there are mass migrations of human beings from warmer climes to colder ones.  People rarely retire to Siberia or even Minnesota.  The flow goes the other direction.

Chicken Little Propaganda Dressed Up As Science.  The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO have delivered their biennial dose of depression about the climate in their latest State of the Climate report.  The climate has warmed by 1.5[°]C and there is barely a single benefit — it is all disaster.  It is often said, "if it is too good to be true, it probably is" and you are being conned.  What about too bad to be true?  Can a gently warming climate have no significant benefits at all?  The only marginally encouraging part of the report is about northern Australia.  There might have been a slight reduction in cyclone numbers, and there has been a bit more rain in the recent decades.  Apart from that, the report reads like the Book of Exodus — one disaster after another.  Only the frogs and boils are missing.  But it is significant that the period when Egyptians were building pyramids, which was hotter than today's climate, is often called the Holocene Climatic Optimum.  The word "optimum" was an indication that scientists working in the era before climate alarmism could see some advantage of a warmer climate.

Left-wing environmentalists in Germany now pray for warm winter amid coming energy shortage, skyrocketing prices.  The one thing you can count on when it comes to the left is hypocrisy and boatloads of it.  For years, Western environmentalists have screamed about 'warming winters' signaling the end of the planet, thanks to 'human-caused climate change' — which, by the way, and regardless of what 'official agencies' say, is only a theory, and an unproven theory at that.  Nowhere have their shouts of warm winter doom and gloom been so shrill than in Germany, where lunatic leftism appears to be a citizenship requirement these days.  For the past decade especially, 'green energy' pushes have led the country to begin shuttering coal and natural gas plants and even zero-emission nuclear power stations in favor of highly unreliable "renewable" energy like wind and solar.  Not only are these technologies overrated, the ability for Germany to produce energy from wind and solar is severely limited like it is everywhere else on the planet.  Plus, in addition to being unreliable (no wind and no sun equals little-to-no electricity production), natural gas and other fossil fuels are far cheaper and, with today's technology, burn much cleaner than they did at the turn of the current century.

Saving the Planet, or Themselves?  Today's warming of one degree Celsius is not an "inconvenient truth" — it is, for some, a minor inconvenience.  But for most of us, it is not even that; it is an opportunity, as, with warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels, plants grow more quickly and in regions where they could not have grown before.  Warming increases the Earth's productivity, making it possible to feed the 10 billion persons expected by 2050.  If the Earth entered a period of sudden cooling, as it well might, the Earth's poor would be at risk of starvation.

The Rhetorical Gymnastics of Climate Change.  Common-sense environmental economist, Bjorn Lomborg, points to the fact that recent increases in CO2 have caused the earth's biomass to expand and become significantly greener.  Lomborg argues that the whole global warming argument utterly fails to account for three important human factors.  First, Lomborg presents statistics that cold kills more people world-wide than heat.  Each year, more than 100,000 people die from cold in the U.S. and 13,000 in Canada alone — which is more than 40 cold deaths for every heat death.  Second, human ingenuity and resilience to global warming is never factored into academic or political-based models or the discourse of climate alarmists.  This is because federal government funding only gives grants which bolster their global climate warming agenda.

The Left Is an Existential Threat.  [Scroll down]  It would have been more convincing if Fortune had painstakingly authenticated global warming, documenting just how much and when the Earth's climate has warmed, if it has, and showing the source of that warming.  It would also be more convincing if that analysis had stretched back over a reasonable period of geologic time — say 40,000 years — to demonstrate that current warming, if it exists, is not just a blip in Earth's history, but a significant departure, which it is not.  It was warmer than now, for example, in the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 A.D.).  As the illustrious historian Norman Cantor has shown, that period coincided with great advances in human civilization in Europe — advances made possible by increased wealth and population resulting from warmer temperatures.  The Medieval Warm Period is estimated to have been one degree Celsius warmer than current temperatures, yet there was no "existential threat."  Far from it:  900 to 1300 A.D. was the period in which Europe's monumental cathedrals were built; its population expanded rapidly; and humans settled Iceland, Greenland, and, for a short time, North America.

Climate Change:  Millions Of Americans Have Voted With Their Feet For A Hotter Climate.  A new Census report shows that this year, the hottest states in the country had the biggest gains in population.  Haven't these people been listening to decades of warnings from climate change scientists about the myriad hazards of a warmer climate?

Trump EPA Administrator:  Could Global Warming Actually Be Good for Humanity?  Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt set off a media firestorm last week when he questioned climate orthodoxy, asking if future global warming might actually be beneficial to humanity.  Pruitt told KSNV in Nevada, "We know that humans have most flourished during times of, what, warming trends," adding that "there's assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing."  The response to Pruitt's remarks was swift and fierce.

Forget extreme temperatures:  Nothing kills as many people as moderate cold.  Some are scoffing at the idea that rising heating costs will kill people.  But check out the number-one temperature-killer in 74 million deaths across 13 countries.  It's not the extremes that we need to worry about, the deadly phrase is "mildly suboptimal temperatures".

Deaths Attributed to Heat, Cold, and Other Weather Events in the United States, 2006-2010.  During 2006-2010, about 2,000 U.S. residents died each year from weather-related causes of death.  About 31% of these deaths were attributed to exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke, or all; 63% were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both; and the remaining 6% were attributed to floods, storms, or lightning.

Surprising Results From Study:  Moderate Cold Kills More People Than Extreme Heat.  Science is a wonderful thing.  As time moves on, in a single direction, Science, as an endeavor, discovers new things and improves our lives.  With a "hat tip" to the inestimable Jane Brody, health journalist at the NY Times who covers the story here, we are reminded of the study from Antonio Gasparrini et al. which was published in The Lancet, July 25, 2015, with the [way too long] title:  "Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study".

The Global Effects of Global Warming on Human Mortality.  [Scroll down]  Once again, therefore, it is as clear as it can possibly be made, that essentially everywhere in the world, typical cold temperatures are far more likely to lead to premature human deaths than are typical warm temperatures.  And because of this fact, we must be thankful for the post-Little Ice Age warming of the world, which has been predominantly experienced almost everywhere at the cold — and deadly — end of the planet's daily temperature spectrum.

I Hope The IPCC Is Correct About Warming Because Cooling Is a Bigger Problem.  I think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that human CO2 is causing warming is wrong.  They created the result they wanted, which wasn't designed to deal with warming but to stop economic development and reduce the population.  They selected the data and mechanisms necessary to prove their hypothesis and manipulated the data where necessary, including rewriting climate history.  The wider evidence, which is only examined when you move outside their limited definition of climate change, is that the world is cooling.

3 killed, scores hospitalized after huge I-78 pileup, police say.  A pileup involving dozens of vehicles on a Pennsylvania interstate that killed three people and sent scores to hospitals appears to have been related to a passing snow squall, authorities said Saturday [2/13/2016].

The Editor says...
Massive chain-reaction pileups on Interstate highways occur during fog, snow and ice.  They don't happen in warm weather.

A Warmer World Is A Healthier World.  Those who continually warn us about the problems that surely will be caused by global warming and want to "fight" it (has there ever been a sillier, more trite phrase than "fight global warming"?) need to slow down and take a look at a study in the Lancet that says "cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather."

Global Warming Has Benefits.  I wish climate alarmists would weigh its accomplishments against the relatively small downsides of climate change.  One of industry's biggest accomplishments is creating a world where far fewer of us are likely to die because of weather.  Alex Epstein's book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" documents the rapidly shrinking number of human beings killed by storms, floods and other climate events thanks largely to ever-growing industry, fueled mainly by oil, natural gas and coal.

Warmth is Good; Cold is the Killer.  For decades green extremists have been spreading doomsday forecasts of global warming.  But where do we find the greatest abundance of life on land?  Follow the equator around the globe — the Amazon, the Congo, Kenya, Indonesia and New Guinea — all places where it is warm and wet.  And where is life such a struggle that few species live there?  Go towards the poles — Siberia and the cold deserts of Antarctica and Greenland.

Former UK Chancellor: Global Warming is Good, Green Policies are 'Grossly Immoral'.  Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson has said that global warming, if it is happening, will likely bring benefits to the developing world, and branded green policies as "grossly immoral".  In an article for Standpoint magazine's May issue, Lord Lawson condemns the green movement for trying to stifle economic growth in the world's poorest countries, and says that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will likely encourage plant growth, thus increasing crop yields across the world.

We're Going to Wish We Still had that Luxury Global Warming 'Problem'!.  Of all the many absurdities of the great climate change non-crisis which has been pointlessly obsessing our planet this last three or four decades, surely the most egregious is the way it has ignored one basic fact:  global warming is good.  No really, it is.  As a few bold heretics — such as Australian geologist Ian Plimer in his book Heaven And Earth — have long been trying to tell anyone prepared to listen, the human species is designed for warmth not cold.  Ice ages are something we should naturally fear; warming periods are something which for which we should yearn.

Our enemy is not global warming. In Britain, people are dying of the cold.  Fanciful predictions of all the deaths that will result from climate change, decades into the future, are regularly thrown into public debate.  Less attention has been given to a real statistic from the here and now, released by the Office of National Statistics this week, which shows the effects of one of the policies designed to tackle climate change:  high energy prices.  It emerged this week that there were 31,000 'excess' deaths in England and Wales last winter, almost a third more than the previous year.  Almost all were, in effect, British pensioners who died of the cold.

Does Environmentalism Cause Amnesia?  [Scroll down]  According to the EPA, "average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s," with the contiguous 48 states warming "faster than the global rate."  Yet U.S. food production over the same time has also risen by robust percentages even as the number of acres under cultivation has been steadily falling for decades.  In other words, even if you believe the temperature records, a warming climate seems to correlate positively with greater food production.  This has mainly to do with better farming practices and the widespread introduction of genetically modified (GMO) crops, and perhaps also the stimulative effects that carbon dioxide has on photosynthesis (though this is debated).  Warming also could mean that northern latitudes now not suited for farming might become so in the future.

Why climate change is good for the world.  Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century.  This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion.  Yet almost nobody seems to know this.

Global warming can have a positive side, says Owen Paterson.  The cabinet minister responsible for fighting the effects of climate change claimed there would be advantages to an increase in temperature predicted by the United Nations including fewer people dying of cold in winter and the growth of certain crops further north.

EPA Mandates That New Coal Plants Prevent Nonexistent Climate Problem With Unavailable Solution.  Given that "climate change" has been going on for millions of years, "mitigating" it is going to be a very tall order.  Besides, consider that all of that mitigation, even if it could be accomplished, might bring about conditions that are a whole lot worse.  For example, what if that 17-year-long global warming pause we have been experiencing turned cold again as occurred during the "Little Ice Age" between about 1400-1859 AD, certainly not my idea of an improvement.  Remember hearing about Washington's troops freezing at Valley Forge in 1777-78, and Napoleon's bitterly cold retreat from Russia in 1812?  No, give me some of that good ol' global warming any day!

A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming.  [Scroll down]  Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage.  Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Climate control is more energy demanding in Minneapolis than in Miami.  Energy demand for climate control was analyzed for Miami (the warmest large metropolitan area in the US) and Minneapolis (the coldest large metropolitan area). [...] The results indicate that climate control in Minneapolis is about 3.5 times as energy demanding as in Miami.  This finding suggests that, in the US, living in cold climates is more energy demanding than living in hot climates.

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their "Science".  As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011:  "We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years... The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people.  It's not good for people and it's not good for the environment... In a warmer world we can produce more food."

Global Warming Benefits Arctic Species, Peer-Reviewed Study Shows.  Global warming will benefit most Arctic species, a team of scientists report in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS One.  The scientists found global warming will allow most Arctic species to expand their ranges and no species are expected to go extinct.  The study delivers a sharp blow to global warming activists who have been arguing Arctic warming justifies costly government-imposed economic restrictions.

Real-World Data Show Warming Is Modest, Beneficial.  It has been nearly 25 years since James Hansen first regaled Congress with predictions of imminent global warming doom and gloom.  At the time, the Earth had only recently emerged from a 30-year cooling period and projections of future warming had little empirical data to back them up.  Accordingly, computer models ruled the day.  Now, 25 years later, scientists have enough data to test warming projections versus real-world observational data.  The real-world data indicate global warming will be more modest and beneficial than feared.

Global Cooling: A Far More Dangerous Fate.  In a warmer world, less energy is needed for heating and transportation, resulting in less air, land, and water pollution.  Snow and ice that seriously hamper movement and increase the costs of land and water shipping are reduced.  Roads, bridges, and other infrastructure maintenance costs drop, as there would be less freeze/thaw and ice damage.  Clothing expenses obviously reduce in a warmer world, and construction costs plummet as less insulation is required in all buildings.  The benefits of warming are especially prominent in agriculture.

"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."

- Albert Camus