Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

Weather Channel Founder John Coleman Reveals The TRUTH About Global Warming

The veteran weather forecaster told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” that the news network was promoting an inaccurate view on the issue.

“CNN has taken a very strong position on global warming, that it is a consensus,” he said. “Well, there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote, science is about facts.”

“And if you get down to the hard, cold facts, there’s no question about it: Climate change is not happening, there is no significant, man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future. There’s a whole lot of baloney.”

Coleman said climate change has become part of the Democratic Party platform, adding that he regretted that the issue has become “political instead of scientific.”

“But the science is on my side,” he declared.

Challenged on the assertion that “97 percent of climate scientists” are in agreement on the issue, Coleman charged that the figure was “manipulated.”

Since the Obama’s government only funds scientists who put out results “supporting the global warming hypothesis,” he claimed, “they don’t have any choice.”




The evidence of global climate readings strongly backs up President Trump’s decision to rescind the US signature on the Paris Accords. Liberals have taken to denying the facts, calling dissenters “climate deniers.” Some have even equated such opinions with those of holocaust deniers and have even sought to criminalize their opinions.

And the fashionistas have taken over, mocking those who insist on following the data rather than the late-night talk show consensus, calling them “anti-science” and “flat earth people.”

Here is the key fact: From 1998-2012, the Earth’s temperature warmed by 12/100 of one degree Centigrade, itself a slowing of the warming pace of the previous decade. But for the second half of this period — from 2001-2012– the pace of warming dropped by even more — with the Earth warming by only 5/100 of one degree.

The left is fond of citing the statistic that 2016 — and 2015 and 2014 before it — was the warmest year on record. That’s true. But the margin by which each year was warmer than the one before was microscopic. In fact, the temperatures did not change much at all.

The media is happy to point out that the U.S. is the “greatest polluter” in history. But U.S. emissions of carbon have dropped while China’s have soared. By 2011, the United States accounted for 17% of global carbon emissions while China was the source of 27%. To make us the bad guys is to hold our distant past against us. Each year, China increases its emissions by an amount equal to Japan’s total carbon emissions during the year.

And the U.S. has dramatically decreased its emissions from 6,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to 5,000 from 2007-2014 by switching from costly coal to less expensive and, thanks to fracking, more available natural gas. (The left, which claims to be concerned about carbon emissions, fights tooth and nail against fracking even though it mitigates the problem significantly.)

Finally, Trump’s refusal to stay in the Paris system is motivated by China’s so-so participation. The Chinese have not committed to any fixed target or any specific steps to reduce its carbon output, the largest in the world. Rather, they promise to give the subject their earnest attention several years down the road. In the meantime, one quarter of global emissions come from China.

So Trump has struck a blow for economic sanity and scientific truth by pulling out of the Paris accords. Good for him! Good for us!

Budget Architect: “Waste of Money” to Research Climate Change

Director Mick Mulvaney of the Office of Management and Budget is reportedly one of the chief architects behind the newly-released White House budget proposal, and he isn’t shy about defending the deep cuts recommended in the plan. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Mulvaney was asked about President Trump’s proposal to slash the EPA’s funding and how it would affect governmental research on climate change.

“Part of your answer is focusing on efficiencies and focusing on doing what we do better. As to climate change, I think the President was fairly straightforward saying we’re not spending money on that anymore,” Mulvaney said. “We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that. So that is a specific tie to his campaign.”

Trump has suggested deep spending cuts to several government agencies, including the EPA, in his proposal for discretionary spending for Fiscal Year 2017. He has also announced h
is plans to eliminate at least 3,000 jobs at the EPA, a move that would by itself curtail much of the department’s regulatory enforcement power. He is also talking seriously about yanking U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Agreement, which could save taxpayers in excess of half a billion dollars.

In his remarks on Thursday, Mulvaney said that Trump’s budget was in line with the theme of his candidacy.“The President is absolutely going to keep his promises made on the campaign trail,” Mulvaney said. “He did not ask lobbyists for input on this. He did not ask special interests for input on this and he certainly didn’t focus on how these programs might impact a specific congressional district but we know that going into it. The message we’re sending to the Hill is, we want more money for the things the President talked about, defense being the top one, national security and we don’t want to add to the budget deficit.”

Specific to the EPA, Trump has spoken numerous times about his skepticism of the official line on climate change, putting him back on the firm footing that many moderate Republicans have abandoned. But really, this comes down less to what you believe or don’t believe about climate change and more to what you believe the federal government should or shouldn’t be doing with our tax dollars. Even climate change zealots have said the Obama administration’s efforts will do little to curb carbon emissions. Why should we spend billions on programs that do nothing to curb a problem that we don’t have?

Republicans aren’t going to pass this budget as it is, but if they even keep a fraction of Trump’s framework, it’ll be one of the biggest strikes for small government conservatism we’ve seen in a long time. And it will come from a president who mainstream conservative thinkers barely consider to be part of their ideological ranks. How interesting…


Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data

The Mail on Sunday today 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.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




In exchange for going along with the United Nations “climate” agenda, the world’s largest coalition of Third World dictators and backwards regimes is demanding “significantly” more than $100 billion per year in global-warming reparations from Western taxpayers. Known as the Group of 77 plus (Communist) China, the radical 134-member alliance, which includes the world’s most oppressive dictators, released a statement saying “nothing” could be achieved at the ongoing UN global-warming summit in Paris without lots of “climate finance” flowing from freer nations to their largely autocratic regimes.
The UN and most Western governments have so far been more than happy to fork over their struggling taxpayers’ wealth to the extortionists in exchange for a UN “climate” regime imposing draconian controls on all of humanity. Last year alone, more than $60 billion in supposed climate reparations was handed out to Third World rulers, according to a recent study. But those rulers want more — much more — and are now threatening to scuttle the whole UN “climate” agenda if they do not get their way.

In a statement sent to journalists, the Third World alliance, which last year demanded global socialism and what it called a “New World Order to Live Well,” listed its latest climate demands. “The G77 and China stresses that nothing under the UNFCCC [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] can be achieved without the provision of means of implementation [wealth from the West] to enable developing countries [Third World governments] to play their part to address climate change,” said Ambassador Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko, representing the South African Communist Party (SACP)-African National Congress (ANC) regime but speaking on behalf of the entire G77 plus Communist China outfit.

“It is now time for all developed country Parties [governments ruling freer and more prosperous nations] to convert their pledges to the GCF [Green Climate slush Fund] into contribution agreements, as well as scaling up commitments [bribe promises],” Mxakato-Diseko continued. “Under the Convention, developed countries are obliged to provide financial resources, including technology transfer and capacity building to all developing countries. This is a legal obligation under the Convention.”

The radical South African diplomat and the alliance of regimes she was speaking for insisted that the loot being demanded was not “aid,” “charity,” or “development assistance” (foreign aid). Instead, it is reparations for the West’s industrial, economic, and technological progress and the associated emissions of carbon dioxide, which scientists know as the “gas of life.” “Finance support from developed countries relates to the impacts of historical emissions, which will only get worse with time for developing countries,” Mxakato-Diseko alleged.

Virtually all Western governments and the UN itself have expressed a willingness to embrace the outlandish narrative and comply with the extortion racket. For instance, Western governments have already vowed to shower trillions of dollars on corrupt Third World governments as a sort of ongoing bribe over the years and decades ahead — all under the guise of reparations for human emissions of carbon dioxide, which make up a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere.

The Climate Agenda Behind the Bacon Scare

The widely publicized warning about meat isn’t about health. It’s about the progressives fighting global warming.

Headlines blaring that processed and red meat causes cancer have made this steak-and-bacon-loving nation collectively reach for the Rolaids. Vegans are in full party mode, and the media is in a feeding frenzy. But there is more to this story than meets the (rib)eye.

With United Nations climate talks beginning in a few weeks in Paris, the cancer warning seems particularly well timed. Environmental activists have long sought to tie food to the fight against global warming. Now the doomsayers who want to take on modern agriculture, a considerable source of greenhouse-gas emissions, can employ an additional scare tactic: Meat production sickens the planet; meat consumption sickens people.

Late last month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—part of the World Health Organization, an arm of the U.N.—concluded that red meat, like beef and pork, is “probably carcinogenic” to humans, and that processed meat is an even greater cancer threat. The IARC placed foods like bacon, sausage and hot dogs in the same carcinogen category as cigarettes and plutonium.

The working group assessed “more than 800 epidemiological studies that investigated the association of cancer with consumption of red meat or processed meat in many countries.” But support for the IARC’s sweeping conclusion is flimsy at best.

First, the report largely addresses only one cancer—colorectal—while making passing mention of other cancers, like stomach and prostate. Yet the evidence linking red meat and colorectal cancer is unconvincing. The authors write that “positive associations were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies”—hardly enough conclusive evidence to justify a stern cancer warning.

The working group even admits in the same paper that “there is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat” and “no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies.” Despite this, the agency placed red meat in its second-highest carcinogen category, alongside DDT and the human papillomavirus, HPV.

The case against processed meat is dubious, too. According to the IARC report, each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That might sound scary, but the absolute risk is what really matters. As an example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2% of 40-year-olds will develop colorectal cancer over the next 30 years of their lives. What the IARC study suggests is a slightly higher rate—say, 2.4% over 30 years—for those 40-year-olds who tear through a 16-ounce package of bacon every week without fail.

A doctor with the IARC acknowledged in a news release announcing the findings that “for an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small.” But that statement—widely overlooked in most media coverage—didn’t stop the agency from putting processed meat in its highest category of carcinogens, alongside mustard gas and formaldehyde.

Sensationalist reporting makes processed meat sound more dangerous than even the IARC report claims. A headline at NBC News reads: “Ham, Sausages Cause Cancer; Red Meat Probably Does, Too, WHO Group Says.” Another by the national desk at Cox Media Group runs: “Bacon poses same cancer risk as cigarettes, world health group claims.” This is a case where many journalists and policy makers fail to give proper scrutiny to claims that advance the prevailing political narrative. When a report advises eating less meat, few bother to check the facts, because the conclusion is already popular among them and assumed true.

Now we get to the connection between climate alarmism and the meat-is-bad movement. In advance of the Paris climate talks, the World Health Organization released a lengthy report about climate pollutants and global health risks. The section on agriculture discusses the need to direct consumers away from foods whose production emits high levels of greenhouse gases: “A key action with large potential climate and health benefits is to facilitate a shift away from high-GHG foods—many of which are of animal origin—and towards healthy, low-GHG (often plant-based) alternatives.”

The report specifically mentions red and processed meat: “In affluent populations, shifting towards diets based on careful adherence to public health recommendations—including reduced consumption of red and processed meat and/or other animal-sourced foods in favor of healthier plant-based alternatives—has the potential to both reduce GHG emissions and improve population health.”

How would this shift in consumers’ tastes be produced? “Experimental and modeling studies demonstrate that food pricing interventions have the ability to influence food choice,” the report states, before favorably citing a study in the United Kingdom of “taxing all food and drinks with above-average GHG emissions.”

Much of this is aimed at the U.S., which is the world’s top producer of beef and its third-largest producer of pork. Americans, along with Australians and Argentines, are among the world’s biggest per capita meat-eaters. Now climate busybodies can shout that meat causes cancer and is as bad for the person eating it as it is for the planet.

In other words, meat is a double threat that governments should contain. Hang on to your T-bones and sausages, folks.

Ms. Kelly, a cooking instructor and food writer, lives in Orland Park, Ill. Mr. Stier leads the risk analysis division at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

Ted Cruz Nails Lying Sierra Club President to the Wall on Global Warming

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell
It’s absolutely stunning how a simple lie, no longer than a sentence long, can shape the perception of an entire nation. All it takes is a media that’s complicit with the one telling the lie, and an unbeatable propaganda machine rolls over anyone who dares to let the truth pass their lips.
Tuesday, Ted Cruz grilled Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club, a radical environmentalist organization. During the hearing, Mair told two lies that are used by every liberal to promote the global warming/climate change/climate disruption narrative. Not only did he tell these lies with a straight face, he repeated them multiple times.
The first lie was regarding “the pause.” Ted Cruz brought up the fact that satellite data show no significant rise in global temperature over the last 18 or so years. This is true.
But Mair wasn’t having it. This is the exchange between Cruz and Mair over this issue:
Mair: “Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the science is settled…”
Cruz: “How do you address that in the last 18 years, the satellite data show no demonstrable warming whatsoever?”
Mair: “I would rely on the Union of Concerned Scientists, and…the evidence from our own NOAA officials. The data are there.”
Cruz: “Is it correct that the satellite data over the last 18 years demonstrate no significant warming?”
Mair: “No.”
Cruz: “How is it incorrect?”
After this question, Mair sat back, spoke with one of his aides, then leaned forward and replied:
“Based upon our experts, it’s been refuted long ago, and it’s not up for scientific debate.”
I’m curious to know how the above chart has been “refuted.” But of course Mair doesn’t elaborate, nor did he elaborate when he released his rebuttal video shortly after the hearing.
Next, Cruz and Mair debated the infamous “97% consensus.” Here’s the exchange:
Mair: “Senator, 97% of the scientists concur and agree that there is global warming…”
Cruz: “The problem with that statistic, which gets cited a lot, is it’s based on one bogus study…I asked about the science and the evidence, the actual data. We have satellites, they’re measuring temperature. That should be relevant. And your answer was: ‘Pay no attention to your lying eyes and the numbers.’ Instead, listen to the scientists who are receiving massive grants, who tell us ‘Do not debate the science.’”
Cruz continued to press Mair, who simply repeated the 97% phrase over and over again:
Mair: “We concur with the 97% scientific consensus with regard to global warming.”
The alleged 97% consensus has been harshly criticized. The study from which the Sierra Club gets their information (it’s even cited on their website) was conducted by one John Cook.
John Cook allegedly reviewed thousands of peer reviewed papers, and found that out of those papers, 97% of scientists agreed that climate change is at least partially man-made. But there’s a problem with Cook’s results–they’re off by about 96%.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the former director of the University of Delaware’s Center for Climatic Research David R. Legates, examined the evidence, and came to a very different conclusion:
“…’only 41 papers–0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent–had been found to endorse’ the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.”
Not only that, but several of the scientists surveyed, including Dr. Craig Idso, Dr. Nor Shaviv, Dr. Richard Toll, and Dr. Nicola Scafetta, complained that their work was being misrepresented.
Popular Technology interviewed Dr. Idso, and he said:
“It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”
They also interviewed Dr. Scafetta, who said:
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument…What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
In essence, the study upon which the climate change alarmists at the Sierra Club base their idea of a 97% consensus is utter BS.
A final nail in the coffin of a “consensus” is the Global Warming Petition Project, which bears the signatures of over 30,000 scientists, over 9,000 of whom hold PhDs.
The petition states, in part:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that the human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.”
What I’m saying is: Cruz is correct, and Aaron Mair is a liar…or an idiot.


About that Disappearing Polar Ice

by Mark Stetson
NASA finally shows us that the disappearing polar ice came back years ago and has grown larger than before.
Al Gore and others of his tribe have assured us that the polar ice is receding, vanishing, melting…
But then odd things happen. Sometimes we get reports that the polar ice cap is thicker than ever. Other times a ship, carrying researchers who want to investigate the disappearing ice, gets stuck trapped in the ice that is not supposed to be there.
The reason, we are now told, is that the ice is, in fact, larger than it was. James Taylor writes about it at under the headline, “Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat.” The new data completely contradicts the “disappearing ice” allegations.
The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
So do you think the EPA or the Mainstream Media will acknowledge the new information?
I don’t think so either!


Interesting -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 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. Below is a composite picture of multiple computer model predictions for tropical storm Joaquim, shortly before converting to a hurricane. This is from the Tropical Tidbits website, a well organized repository of storm information

Each line represents a different prediction based on a particular computer model.