Q&A: Marc Morano’s Politically Incorrect Book About Climate Change

Al Gore, former vice president, is among the radical left-wing environmentalist who author Marc Morano debunks in his book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” (Photo: Van Tine Dennis/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Marc Morano, founding editor of the award-winning website ClimateDepot.com, recently authored “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” He spoke to Daily Signal Editor-in-Chief Rob Bluey about climate change myths and other facts you probably haven’t heard reported by the media. An edited transcript of their interview is below. You can also listen to it on The Daily Signal podcast.

Rob Bluey: What prompted your interest in the issue of climate change? There’s a great photo of you in the book next to a wanted poster. How did you become such a villain to the left?

Marc Morano: I always said I was a Republican, except when it came to environmental issues. I remember not liking James Watt, the former interior secretary. I remember not liking President Ronald Reagan’s environmental policies. I always wanted to be a forest ranger as a kid growing up. I got heavily involved emotionally in watching all the documentaries about the Amazon rainforest back in the 1980s and 1990s.

It wasn’t until I started reading Dixy Lee Ray and actually hearing her talk, it was actually on Rush Limbaugh’s show, the coverage of the Rio Earth Summit, that I started to look deeper into environmental issues. What I remember her specifically saying, as a nuclear physicist, Dixy Lee Ray, that the Amazon was one of the most intact forests and this idea that it’s about to disappear was complete exaggeration and hype. I started investigating that. It actually culminated in a documentary on the Amazon rainforest.

>>> Buy the Book: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change

Global warming, when I started focusing on it, I actually started with a skeptical view and I was only able to get more and more skeptical, because I saw the same tactics being used.

The way I ended up in the wanted poster in Paris—that was the movie premier of my film “Climate Hustle” from 2015 at a Paris cinema. The environmental groups put out wanted posters of me the day of the premier. All over the city, this was literally on the main streets of Paris. So I posed with one of them in the book and you can see the picture. They called me a “climate criminal wanted for climate crimes.” This is the kind of intimidation they like to do.

Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” in Paris. (Photo Courtesy of Marc Morano)

Bluey: Despite that intimidation, you’ve still gone on to write this book. So what prompted you to do that and what’s your goal when a reader picks it up? What do you want them to walk away with?

Morano: My goal here was to help conservatives and Republicans articulate the issue. During my time on Capitol Hill, I worked for the Senate Environment of Public Works Committee. I can’t tell you the horror stories, Rob, of being in high-level meetings, during the height of the cap-and-trade debate 2007, 2008, 2009; back when President Barack Obama was pushing this through all the way to 2010.

The staffers of very conservative Republican senators would be like, “Well, we don’t want to touch the science on this because we don’t want to be seen as against the Earth or against the environment. Let’s just solely focus on the economics.”

I remember arguing passionately. If people think we face the climate catastrophe, we’re Americans! They’re going to say we will bear any cost and overcome it. They never wanted to challenge it. So I’m trying to, and working for Sen. James Inhofe, we tried to challenge the science.

What I tried to do with this book is say it’s OK to espouse climate skepticism. The book is done for anyone from, I would say, sixth grade through highest levels of education to educate them with the top voices in science, the basic concepts, and to make it fun, informative in a talking point form.

This is a needed book because in order to fulfill President Trump’s policies, you need the scientific justification, and this book fills that gap in, as well as talks about the policy.

Bluey: The other thing the book has is a lot of great facts that I think counter what you so often hear in the media and from liberal politicians. Could you share some of them? I know you have examples right on the cover. For instance, let’s take hurricanes because we’re in the midst right now of another hurricane story. You hear this all the time—that these hurricanes are more intense, they’re happening more often because of climate change. You say, “No.”

Morano: Not only do I say “no,” but the peer-reviewed scientific literature clearly and overwhelmingly says “no.”

There is nothing unusual, particularly on extreme weather. It’s not just hurricanes. Hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, on the entire spectrum of extreme weather, we are either at stable or declining trends. And that includes droughts.

California droughts in previous centuries blew away anything we’re talking about now. Floods, no trends on 100-year, 85-year time scales. Hurricanes were much worse, many more powerful hurricanes in the 1940s and ’50s. In fact, we were in the longest period of no major hurricane category three or larger before last year’s big hurricanes hit. And even though there is this alleged record rains, in the 1960s hurricanes that hit Cuba had many more times rain and flooding events than that.

“They make it seem like extreme weather is everywhere. But taken as a whole, and in the peer-reviewed literature, it’s actually on a declining trend.”

I go into that in the book about these so-called 1,000-year floods and I explain that all these extreme weather events they claim, it’s kind of like a lottery promotion scam. Where they say, “Oh, this is a 1,000-year storm hit this city, and a 1,000-year storm hit that, this is unusual.” No, there are going to be very few lottery winners. But the lottery winners there are, they highlight them. “Look, there’s a lottery winner and there’s a lottery, look the lottery winners are everywhere.” They make it seem like extreme weather is everywhere. But taken as a whole, and in the peer-reviewed literature, it’s actually on a declining trend.

Interestingly enough, cold weather is actually more extreme than warm weather. In the 1970s, they blamed tornadoes, floods, even the threat of war and increased violence on global cooling at the time. So there’s just not the science there at all, when it comes to that. And also I go through all the other myths you’ve heard about from the hottest year on record, the hottest decade.

Bluey: Let’s tackle that one because we hear this one it seems month after month—another record-breaking month. At the same time, I love the chart that The Daily Signal published of the temperature throughout history. You see the lines going up and down. Tell us what we need to know.

Morano: First of all, in the book, I interviewed geologists, I have Nobel Prize-winning scientists endorse the book. They explain that in the geologic history of the Earth, we are in the coldest 10 percent of the geologic history of the Earth. In other words, 90 percent of our Earth’s history was too warm to have ice at either pole. So we are in the 10 percent coldest. That’s No. 1.

No. 2, if you go back to the Roman warming periods during the time that Jesus Christ walked the Earth—and I show this in the peer-reviewed studies in the book, in a very reader-friendly way—we are actually now cooler than we were. So we’ve cooled since the time Jesus Christ walked the Earth. We’re actually about the same temperature or cooler since the medieval warm period, since about 900 to 1300.

First of all, you say hottest year, what time scale? Then, you jump ahead to about 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age, where the New York river, New York Harbor froze over, the Thames river was frozen, it was a brutal period, coinciding with low sun spot activity and bunch of other factors.

Suddenly, we get thermometer data. So the thermometer data comes online right at the end of the Little Ice Age. It’s very cold. All these things you hear about the glaciers retreating, most of that glacier retreat happened by 1900. Now, 80 percent of the carbon dioxide came after 1940, or after World War II in 1945. We had a huge warm spell from the 1920s into the ’30s and then, we had a cooling period from the ’50s all the way up to about the late 1970s. I go into the whole global cooling scare.

“The so-called claims of the hottest year fall easily within the margin of error. That’s why it’s a political statement. It is utter nonsense from beginning to end.”

They now claim, “Oh, that never happened.” They have studies out, they claim that that was overblown, there’s only a couple scientists. I show in the book it was National Academy of Sciences, CIA, some of the same scientists warning of global cooling in the ’70s who then flipped and became global warming.

I actually feature in the book an article from the 1977 and ’78 in The New York Times, two articles. During this time, the scientists were battling it out when global cooling was morphing into a climate change, global warming.

To answer the question on the hottest year, we warm from the late ’70s to the late ’90s. Then essentially we flatlined. Essentially, there’s no statistically significant global warming. We had a thing called “the pause.” They didn’t like that, so they actually went back in the records and erased the pause. They changed the data.

Besides, even doing all that, the hottest year claims are within hundredths of a degree and that margin of error is tenths of a degree and they adjust the temperatures to within tenths of a degree without explanations. The so-called claims of the hottest year fall easily within the margin of error. That’s why it’s a political statement. It is utter nonsense from beginning to end.

It’s a fancy way of saying the temperature hasn’t changed since the ’90s. That’s where they get hottest decade on record. On record just means since the Little Ice Age ended, when we put thermometer data out and that’s what that means. If you go back further, we’ve cooled, Middle Ages, Roman warming period, and even further.

Bluey: Thank you for setting the record straight on that. One of the other things that you argue is that the left has abandoned this fact-based science and instead resorted to just dramatic fear-mongering. What do you mean?

Morano: Go back to the 19th century, Rob, to explain this. Every storm is allegedly unprecedented, we’ve never seen it, this is the new normal, so to speak. This hurricane has a name, it’s Hurricane Katrina. This hurricane has a name, it’s Hurricane Harvey. The same lines over and over. Everything is done as a tactic of fear in order to get action. This started in the 1960s with the modern environmental movement.

Particularly, I go into a little bit about Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb.” I actually show, Rob, that they use this hysteria for the different environmental scares in the 1970s, whether it’s resource scarcity, over-population, rainforest clearing, et cetera.

They will say, “We need a global solution; we need global governance; we need wealth redistribution; we need sovereignty threatening treaty, or some kind of economic activity limiting.” No matter what environmental scare in the past that they tried to scare people with, it was the same solutions they’re proposing now.

In the book, I go back and show over and over that global warming is merely the latest scare they’re using to get their agenda. I show Naomi Klein, who’s an adviser to Pope Francis, who wrote “Capitalism vs. the Climate.” I interviewed her for the book. She actually says that they would be seeking the same solutions even if there was no global warming and that essentially, capitalism is incompatible with a livable climate. She actually urges people, “We need to jump on this because solving global warming will solve what we’ve been trying to achieve all along.”

They’re open about it. They use the climate scare tactics to achieve their ends. And in order to get those ends achieved, they have to hype and scare. It’s been a very effective strategy because they’ve bullied Republican politicians, who should know better, into at least submissiveness and silence and/or activism, when you come to the case with John McCain and even Mitt Romney.

Climate change activists want to have it both ways to advance their agenda, argues author Marc Morano. (Photo: Erik Mcgregor/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Bluey: What are some of the strangest things that you’ve seen the left blame climate change on?

Morano: There’s a whole series of things. One of the things they do is they make opposite predictions. Global warming will cause more snow, less snow. More hurricanes, less hurricanes. More fog, less fog. More malaria, less malaria. I go through it all.

It’s as if you bet on the Super Bowl, and you bet both teams to win. You can go to the office the next day and say, “I did it! I won! I bet on the winning team.” First of all, they’re never wrong because they literally have opposite predictions.

The second thing is they come up with everything. Global warming will cause an increase in prostitution, bar room brawls, vehicle thefts. These are by United Nations scientists who did these studies, funded by major universities. These aren’t just some wacky claim, or some professor talking off the top of his head. They actually get funded studies to do this.

“They actually blame the rise of Hitler on global warming. … There are so many wacky things that they’ll blame on global warming.”

One of my favorites was in 1941, a University of Cincinnati professor said that the warmer weather we were having in the 1930s and ’40s created more docile people, which led to them being more susceptible to Hitler, Mussolini, and dictators. They actually blame the rise of Hitler on global warming at that time. Oddly enough, Hitler was saved in the bunker when Von Stauffenberg tried to kill him. Because it was a very hot day, they had to move the location of that meeting when the assassination attempt happened. They moved it to a room with a heavy table that saved Hitler. Global warming created Hitler, global warming saved Hitler.

There are so many wacky things that they’ll blame on global warming. My favorite quote is probably Michael Oppenheimer, U.N. lead scientist, former Environmental Defense Fund activist, “Anybody who eats is under threat from climate change.” That’s his summation. So there you go. It’s that combination of just about everything. If you eat, then you’re under threat of climate change, you should be worried. If you don’t eat, then you’re fine.

Even when you’re dead, you won’t escape the clutches of global warming. In the book, I show multiple examples. In one case, Peruvian mummies are decaying faster because of the humidity caused by climate change. Also, they’re worried that dead bodies in the permafrost in Siberia are melting and are going to release new pathogens. The dead walk among us because of global warming. So, even the dead are now to blame for exacerbating the problem of global warming.

Bluey: We’ve used these terms interchangeably: climate change and global warming. Can the left make up its mind on what to call it?

Morano: No, in fact, in the book, I have a lot of fun. “Global climate disruption” was John Holdren, Obama’s former science czar. He wanted to call it that. “Global weirding” is what Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist, wants to call it. They’ve come up with all these different names. “Global heating.”

Former Sen. Barbara Boxer, when I was in the Senate Environment Public Works Committee, she actually called the hearing “global warming” one time. This was when they were really trying to push climate change. Temperatures hit their peak in the late 1990s from the cooling of the 1970s. They’ve tried to push climate change because they didn’t think without that constant increase in temperature, they weren’t getting anywhere. It was getting harder to sell.

“[C]limate change had to be the new moniker because global warming was too focused on temperature.”

Climate change includes the extreme weather. I remember very vividly, I was in Bali, Indonesia—a $15,000 roundtrip business class flight for the U.S. Senate at a global warming hearing for the United Nations—arguing with a John McCain climate staffer about how the new argument in global warming was all going to be about extreme weather.

Therefore, climate change had to be the new moniker because global warming was too focused on temperature. They wanted to go out on every limb and this way they could blame everything from cows and transportation, airlines.

They’re trying to get every aspect of our society under global warming regulation and not just focus on temperature. Because now if you have a bad crop, if you have vehicle crash—the Department of Transportation got us funding to study how global warming could increase fatal car accidents—that’s why it has to be “climate change,” because they’re trying to go in every direction.

Bluey: How have the left’s policies, as you argue in the book, hurt the world’s poor?

Morano: That is one of the most insidious things. In the book, I feature Al Gore at a Bill Gates function, saying that Africa’s projected to have more people than China and India combined in the next century and that we need “ubiquitous fertility management.”

This is a white, wealthy Western politician saying essentially there are too many black Africans. Let’s be blunt about it. I actually quote a former Harvard professor just excoriating Al Gore for essentially racist comments. Basically singling out Africa and saying, “They’ve got to have better fertility management because we have too many Africans and we’ve got to control their population.” Now Al Gore would just say, “No, I’m thinking of only the Earth.” But what conservative politician could get away with that?

“Fossil fuels are the most abundant, cheaply available, and fastest way out of energy poverty, which means they’re the lifeline for lowering infant mortality, longer life expectancy, modern dentistry.”

When you look at third-world development—and by the way, “third world” is a politically incorrect term; we’re supposed to say the “developing world”—they have about 1.1 billion people without running water and electricity. Essentially, what they’re trying to do with climate policy is prevent them from developing through fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are the most abundant, cheaply available, and fastest way out of energy poverty, which means they’re the lifeline for lowering infant mortality, longer life expectancy, modern dentistry.

If you’re living in a poor nation, you’re burning dung, you’re living in a hut made of dung, you’re breathing in horrible air, the rivers are polluted from sewage. The second you get modern sewage, the second you get coal plants even or oil or even nuclear, if you’re lucky enough, everything gets radically cleaner. They’re trying to prevent it. Even the World Bank won’t allow coal plant development in countries that are in dire poverty.

These environmentalists I interviewed, one in South Africa, they travel the world from Minnesota and other places—wealthy, white Western college kids—go to Africa and essentially say, “You’re doing it right by living this primitive existence. You’re living it right. You’re Earth-friendly.”

I interviewed Jerry Brown, the California governor, at an Earth Summit in South Africa. He actually says the Earth can’t allow the rest of the world to develop like the United States and Europe because we’d need 20 more Earths to do it. In other words, they have to be managed. It’s a new form of colonialism. It’s the most insidious things. That’s a very intense chapter in the book because it’s an eye-opener for people who haven’t been following this. They are trying to limit their development.

The environmental activists—climate activists—they even have something called the U.N. Climate Fund. I interviewed a South African development activist, Leon Lowe, who’s very articulate. He just says, “The developing world needs to tell the first world to essentially go to hell if they’re going to tell them how to develop, what resources they can use of their own.”

He says, “Until London, Rotterdam, Paris, and Washington level their cities, return them to swamps and wetlands and jungles, they have no business telling the developing world how they can use the natural resources, how they can develop, what energy they can use.”

That’s the dilemma we’re facing now. They’re trying to control and manage people and keep them at a subsistence level of life. It’s the most anti-human movement of today. It’s why former Czech President Václav Klaus has said, the greatest threat we face today for human freedom is, what he says, “ambitions environmentalism from the climate movement.”

Bluey: In addition to writing the book, you run a website called ClimateDepot.com. What’s your mission? What do you strive to do there?

What I’m trying to do there is have a daily one-stop shop of all the latest climate, energy, and environmental news. In other words, I link to all the mainstream sources, but I’ll try to pick out some of the best tidbits and actually try to do reality checks all the time. I do special reports.

It’s a way for you to get your energy, climate, environment news without just having to hear the mantra of nonsense, of 97 percent of all scientists agree the Earth is doomed, we’re facing a catastrophe, we need the Paris Agreement.

I have user guides. I have special reports and I have a lot of humor to try to bring people in—to say this is not an intimidating topic. Don’t be afraid to stand up because the whole movement is designed—the environmental left has designed this to intimidate everyone into silence on this issue. If you’re against climate change, belief in climate change, catastrophic climate change, you are a dumb person. You are an idiot. You’re a rube. You’re not welcome in polite society. Even the impolite don’t want you.

Bluey: Marc, thanks so much. Again, the book is called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” Thanks for writing it.

Morano: Thank you, Rob. Appreciate it, enjoyed it.

Advertisements

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years | The Daily Caller

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years

 By Michael Bastaschglobal_warming_hoax
 
Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record it showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”

 

The study is sure to be contentious. Christy has argued for years that climate models exaggerate global warming in the bulk atmosphere, which satellites have monitored since the late 1970s.

Christy, a noted skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.

While many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, few have really challenged the validity of the models themselves.

A recent study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer found that while the models ran hot, the “overestimation” was “partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Christy’s removal of volcanic-driven cooling from satellite temperature data could also draw scrutiny. The study also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.

Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.

“While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers, or a long-term cooling,” Christy said.

DON’T FORGET TO WATCH GORE’S DISASTROUS CNN TOWN HALL:

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 

Life in fossil-fuel-free utopia – Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen
Life in fossil-fuel-free utopia
 Al Gore’s new movie, a New York Times article on the final Obama Era “manmade climate disaster” report, and a piece saying wrathful people twelve years from now will hang hundreds of “climate deniers” are a tiny sample of Climate Hysteria and Anti-Trump Resistance rising to a crescendo. If we don’t end our evil fossil-fuel-burning lifestyles and go 100% renewable Right Now, we are doomed, they rail.
Maybe it’s our educational system, our cargo cult’s easy access to food and technology far from farms, mines and factories, or the end-of-days propaganda constantly pounded into our heads. Whatever the reason, far too many people have a pitiful grasp of reality: natural climate fluctuations throughout Earth history; the intricate, often fragile sources of things we take for granted; and what life would really be like in the utopian fossil-fuel-free future they dream of. Let’s take a short journey into that idyllic realm. 

Suppose we generate just the 25 billion megawatt-hours of today’s total global electricity consumption using wind turbines. (That’s not total energy consumption, and it doesn’t include what we’d need to charge a billion electric vehicles.) We’d need more than 830 million gigantic 3-megawatt turbines!

Spacing them at just 15 acres per turbine would require 12.5 billion acres! That’s twice the land area of North America! All those whirling blades would virtually exterminate raptors, other birds and bats. Rodent and insect populations would soar. Add in transmission lines, solar panels and biofuel plantations to meet the rest of the world’s energy demands – and the mostly illegal tree cutting for firewood to heat poor families’ homes – and huge swaths of our remaining forest and grassland habitats would disappear.

The renewable future assumes these “eco-friendly alternatives” would provide reliable, affordable energy 24/7/365, even during windless, sunless weeks and cold, dry growing seasons. They never will, of course. That means we will have electricity and fuels when nature cooperates, instead of when we need it.

With backup power plants gone, constantly on-and-off electricity will make it impossible to operate assembly lines, use the internet, do an MRI or surgery, enjoy favorite TV shows or even cook dinner. Refrigerators and freezers would conk out for hours or days at a time. Medicines and foods would spoil.

 

Petrochemical feed stocks would be gone – so we wouldn’t have paints, plastics, synthetic fibers or pharmaceuticals, except what can be obtained at great expense from weather-dependent biodiesel. Kiss your cotton-polyester-lycra leggings and yoga pants good-bye.

But of course all that is really not likely to happen. It would actually be far worse.

First of all, there wouldn’t even be any wind turbines or solar panels. Without fossil fuels – or far more nuclear and hydroelectric plants, which rabid environmentalists also despise – we couldn’t mine the needed ores, process and smelt them, build and operate foundries, factories, refineries or cement kilns, manufacture and assemble turbines and panels. We couldn’t even make machinery to put in factories.

Wind turbines, solar panels and solar thermal installations cannot produce consistently high enough heat to smelt ores and forge metals. They cannot generate power on a reliable enough basis to operate facilities that make modern technologies possible. They cannot provide the power required to manufacture turbines, panels, batteries or transmission lines – much less power civilization.

 

My grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.” Well, they’d be back, as the USA is de-carbonized, de-industrialized and de-developed.

Ponder America and Europe before coal fueled the modern industrial age. Recall what we were able to do back then, what lives were like, how long people lived. Visit Colonial Williamsburg and Claude Moore Colonial Farm in Virginia, or similar places in your state. Explore rural Africa and India.

Imagine living that way, every day: pulling water from wells, working the fields with your hoe and ox-pulled plow, spinning cotton thread and weaving on looms, relying on whatever metal tools your local blacksmith shop can produce. When the sun goes down, your lives will largely shut down.

 

Think back to amazing construction projects of ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome – or even 18th century London, Paris, New York. Ponder how they were built, how many people it took, how they obtained and moved the raw materials. Imagine being part of those wondrous enterprises, from sunup to sundown.

The good news is that there will be millions of new jobs. The bad news is that they’d involve mostly backbreaking labor with picks and shovels, for a buck an hour. Low-skill, low-productivity jobs just don’t pay all that well. Maybe to create even more jobs, the government will issue spoons, instead of shovels.

That will be your life, not reading, watching TV and YouTube or playing video games. Heck, there won’t even be any televisions or cell phones. Drugs and alcohol will be much harder to come by, too. (No more opioid crisis.) Water wheels and wind mills will be back in fashion. All-natural power, not all the time. 

More good news: Polluting, gas-guzzling, climate-changing cars and light trucks will be a thing of the past. Instead, you’ll have horses, oxen, donkeys, buggies and wagons again … grow millions of acres of hay to feed them – and have to dispose of millions or billions of tons of manure and urine every year.

There’ll be no paved streets – unless armies of low-skill workers pound rocks into gravel, mine and grind limestone, shale, bauxite and sand for cement, and make charcoal for lime kilns. Homes will revert to what can be built with pre-industrial technologies, with no central heat and definitely no AC.

Ah, but you folks promoting the idyllic renewable energy future will still be the ruling elites. You’ll get to live better than the rest of us, enjoy lives of reading and leisure, telling us commoners how we must live. Don’t bet on it. Don’t even bet on having the stamina to read after a long day with your shovel or spoon.

As society and especially big urban areas collapse into chaos, it will be survival of the fittest. And that group likely won’t include too many Handgun Control and Gun Free Zone devotees.

But at least your climate will be stable and serene – or so you suppose. You won’t have any more extreme weather events. Sea levels will stay right where they are today: 400 feet higher than when a warming planet melted the last mile-thick glaciers that covered half the Northern Hemisphere 12,000 years ago.

At least it will be stable and serene until those solar, cosmic ray, ocean currents and other pesky, powerful natural forces decide to mess around with Planet Earth again.

Of course, many countries won’t be as stupid as the self-righteous utopian nations. They will still use fossil fuels, plus nuclear and hydroelectric, and watch while you roll backward toward the “good old days.” Those that don’t swoop in to conquer and plunder may even send us food, clothing and monetary aid (most of which will end up with ruling elites and their families, friends, cronies and private armies).

So how about this as a better option?

Stop obsessing over “dangerous manmade climate change.” Focus on what really threatens our planet and its people: North Korea, Iran, Islamist terrorism – and rampant poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death among the billions who still do not have access to electricity and the living standards it brings.

Worry less about manmade climate cataclysms – and more about cataclysms caused by policies promoted in the name of controlling Earth’s climate, when they really end up controlling our lives.

Don’t force-feed us with today’s substandard, subsidized, pseudo-sustainable, pseudo-renewable energy systems. When better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies are developed, they will replace fossil fuels. Until then, we would be crazy to go down the primrose path to renewable energy utopia.

Trump Slashing Obama Legacy in Epic Fashion

One of the key campaign promises that then-candidate Donald Trump ran on and that likely contributed to his successful election was his oft-repeated vow to cut through the bureaucratic red tape holding back the economy by slashing unnecessary government regulations.

According to Reuters, it appears that President Trump and his administration are making good on that promise, as the White House just announced that they had either killed or removed from consideration some 800 different proposed regulations set forth under former President Barack Obama’s administration that had not yet been finalized or taken effect.

At least 469 planned regulations had been withdrawn and some 391 other regulations already in the active process had been reclassified as long-term or inactive in order to allow for “further careful review.”

The administration isn’t done there, as some 300 other energy production-related regulations coming from the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Departments of Energy and Interior, would be delayed, reviewed and possibly rescinded.

And that is just from those three departments. This process is playing out in virtually every department and agency across the entirety of the executive branch.

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said that this was evidence that the administration was addressing and diminishing “that slow cancer that can come from regulatory burdens that we put on our people.”

Along those lines, the Washington Examiner reported on another bit of related good news involving Trump’s agenda to cut back on government regulations.

Our readers will no doubt recall that one of Trump’s first executive orders stipulated that for every new regulation that was proposed, two old regulations would have to be done away with.

Trump’s administration has actually done even better than that in practice; in fact, eight times better, as they are averaging 16 old regulations killed for every new rule put forward.

“It’s really the beginning of a kind of fundamental regulatory reform and a reorientation of where we’re going with regulation,” explained Neomi Rao, administrator of the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Rao also revealed that the goal of what is being called “MAGAnomics” is to reach three percent economic growth, largely spurred on by cutting regulations and providing businesses more room to hire and expand.

She further added that, unlike prior regulatory reports from previous administrations which didn’t track deregulation at all, future reports would indeed feature a column highlighting killed regulations.

Just for a bit of context regarding Trump’s deregulation from the Washington Examiner: the OMB pointed out that under the last five months of Obama’s administration, some $6.8 billion in new rules were imposed on the economy. In comparison, Trump has imposed less than $0 in his first six months.

Similarly, Obama added $3.1 billion in new regulatory costs in his first six months, while Trump has instead saved an estimated $22 million thus far.

This is what we voted for, and we are thrilled to see this major campaign promise regarding deregulation being fulfilled. So is our nation’s economy.

H/T Washington Free Beacon

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to let everyone know that Trump has been keeping his word in terms of cutting back burdensome regulations.

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: “Not Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data” | Zero Hedge

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

 
 

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

 

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

 

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

 

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Of course, this won’t stop global climate normalcy deniers from saying it’s all one big conspiracy to destroy the earth. They’ll naturally argue that data adjustments to the temperatures need to be made for a variety of reasons, which is something the report doesn’t dispute. What it does show, however, is that these “adjustments” always prove to be to the upside. Always warmer, never cooler:

 
 

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

In short: The evidence has been falsified.

Karl Denninger sums it up succinctly:

 
 

It is therefore quite-clear that the data has been intentionally tampered with.

 

Since this has formed the basis for plans to steal literal trillions of dollars and has already resulted in the forced extraction of hundreds of billions in aggregate for motorists and industry this quite-clearly constitutes the largest economic fraud ever perpetrated in the world.

 

I call for the indictment and prosecution of every person and organization involved, asset-stripping all of them to their literal underwear.

The real data looks something like this:

global-warming-data1

(Via ZeroHedge.com)

And the establishment, along with their fanatical global warming myrmidons, continue to push the need for massive, costly initiatives to reduce green house gases and global temperatures to “normal” levels.

The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.

Moreover, none of those supporting the Paris Climate Agreement and other initiatives have any idea what these behemoth regulations will actually do to curb climate change, as evidenced by the following video of Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, who despite his best efforts, can’t seem to figure out exactly how these agreements actually lower temperatures and help Americans:

The Latest Fake Climate Change Information – Freedom Outpost

By Leon Puissegur

We had a recent article on Global Warming/Climate Change, but this one is going to show just how the entire idea of this is nothing more than a very huge hoax to extract huge sums of money from the United States to give to nations who have no skin whatsoever in this game. It is a total and unequivocal lie brought to the people by Al Gore and his professor Roger Revelle who had done the global warming idea just to obtain grants. Al Gore has gotten rich on his selling of the paper showing CO2 was stopped when it in most cases was never stopped or even pumped into the ground, although some has been, it will never amount to the amount needed to stop CO2 production which is also produced by our exhaling of air as we breath.

Let us look at the last sentence first, we breathe in air, which is mostly Nitrogen with a small mix of other gases including oxygen of which we need to live. But when we exhale, we get rid of Carbon Dioxide. So based upon some ideas, just being alive contributes to Global Warming? Now we know that is stupid but from here we will show how others have shown the entire ideas of global warming and climate change are both vague ideas which cannot really be born out to be 100 percent accurate.

In an article from June 23, 2014 by Mike Adams titled Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions, Mike Adams shows that NASA and NOAA have both been caught red-handed as he states in the article.  

Mr. Adams wrote:

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a “climate change narrative” that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

If one goes to the web site they will be able to view all the charts to see how they were changed to make it look like both of these government agencies wanted them to look. Here we see that the Obama administration, holding to the fraudulent ideas of GW/CC, promoted the fake ideas to ensure the United States would lose great amounts of money, we will show this a little later from another article proving the Paris Accords were never any good for the people of the United States.

With the election of President Trump we see through his actions that he knew full well that President Obama did not know how to negotiate anything and in most cases, he must have been told to just go along with what they present. This seems to be totally evident as will be shown just how bad of a deal the Paris Accords were for the United States. For now we will visit the FAKE GW/CC ideology. Mr. Adams goes on to state:

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), “NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models.”

Because the actual historical temperature record doesn’t fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using “computer models” and then published as fact.

We know what computer models do.   We see it on the weather stations all the time.  According to the computer models, we are supposed to get so much rain here and in reality, it is either above or below the computer models. Computer models are programmed and can be programmed to show what is not real. Mr. Adams seems to show this to be very true in his article. Based just upon this we can see where GW/CC is about as real as the Easter Bunny.

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Seeing that President Obama had helped the cause of Fake GW/CC seems to show that the United States was shoveled a huge pile of prefabricated ideas that never met the real world and like the Ex-president Obama, they both lived in delusional worlds. Now let us move on to another article, which shows how much money, and for what reason the United States was to pay it in 2020.

Allow us to select a few choice words from this article to further prove how bad the Paris Accords are and why they have nothing at all to do with GW/CC.

At his climate science critical website, Die kalte Sonne, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt says the USA has de facto begun the exit out of the Paris Climate Accord, or CLEXIT, and that among world leaders at least Donald Trump comprehends that natural factors are at play in climate.

Moreover, Vahrenholt notes that upon really reading the Paris Accord for the first time, it is only now that the media have become surprised that it is not even a binding agreement, but instead one that only involves intentions by the rich countries to transfer cash to developing nations to the tune of $100 billion annually beginning in 2020.

Here we now see the real idea for the Paris Accords, to redistribute the wealth of our nation and other wealthy nations to nations with little or no money. All the while allowing China and India to not contribute a penny to this at all while also not having to comply with the Paris Accord. This may well have been a deal even worse than the Iran deal. Our nation was to contribute $100billion a year and with our economy like it is now, how could we do that and keep our people working?

The author goes on:

He wonders why neither Obama nor Merkel, Juncker or Macron have found it necessary so far to explain to their citizens the agreement burdens their own citizens to the benefit of no. 1 emitters China, and India.

Now with the open book showing that the Paris Accords were not in the best interest of the United States, we have to wonder what was Obama doing signing an agreement like this? It is so very revealing that now that this is out, we have elected a President that will not sign an agreement that makes the United States look like a fool. It is no wonder that the world leaders were laughing at Obama for his ineptness. Vahrenholt goes on to state even more.

Vahrenholt calculated the 2030 per capita emissions China would be allowed by the Paris Accord:

In 2030 Europeans would have to lower their emissions to 4 tonnes per capita, while China’s would be allowed to rise to 14 tonnes per capita and the USA would have to fall to 10 tonnes per capita. One has to ask, who signed, cheered and celebrated such an agreement and welcome it with tears of joy?

Vahrenholt describes an agreement that is totally in favor of China, a country that plans to construct 368 coal power plants by 2020 while India plans to build 370. In his view the Paris Accord is a free ride for China.

Overall the Paris Accord will hardly have any effect on total emissions.

This just seems to prove the idea of GW/CC is nothing more than a way to have the rich nations distribute their hard earned dollars to an idea that only moves money from the rich to the poor and even that is questionable since the poor will never see the money as it is used by the very people who came up with the idea to travel the world and make it look like they are doing something when they are just holding nonsense meetings.

In Vahrenholt’s view the agreement is neither about the climate nor the environment, and that its real intention was made clear by Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute in 2010:

Through climate policy we will de facto redistribute global wealth, one has to free himself of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.

Also the German professor of chemistry writes that European leaders cannot expect Trump to simply defraud his voters by not keeping his campaign promises, as controversial as some may be.

Vahrenholt, a member of the SPD socialist party, says Trump’s decision is nothing to criticize, and those who do criticize either do not understand the mechanism of Paris, or have an interest in deindustrializing Germany and the bad USA.

Here we see a leader of the Socialist Party coming down hard on the Paris Accords because it is too evil for even the Socialists to hold up to a high standard. He even mentions the fact that the United States along with Germany would be deindustrialized, meaning millions of people would lose their jobs because they had no factories to work at nor fuel to go to that job. If that is not enough to make ones head explode we will show more that should have anyone reading this article pushing to have all people read it to ensure we do not fall into the GW/CC trap.

Overall Vahrenholt sees the Paris Accord as practically dead because Trump’s most important announcement is a stop of all finances to the green climate fund, which was to be supplied with $100 billion beginning in 2020. The USA’s share is 22%.

Vahrenholt also blasts the IPCC climate conference circuses of Cancun, Bali, Durban, etc..

The USA gave $55 million annually for this travelling climate circus to go to the most exotic locations of the world so that the Schellnhubers and Edenhofers of the globe could act like they were doing important things on the taxpayers’ dime.

Here, it is shown that the United States paid $55 million a year for these people to go around the world essentially begging for money so they could continue their Fake ideas on Global Warming and Climate Change both of which help fund their travels on our dime. If that does not get you mad to understand that for the last 8 years the United States gave some $440 million dollars to the elites of the IPCC so they could go around the world spreading a fear that holds no basis in real fact. In this article we have shown that the Global Warming/Climate Change ideas both have been fabricated just to enrich certain groups to continue their illusion of that to the people while in reality our world is doing just fine and will continue to do well.

Professor Vahreholt even cited another professor to show how she felt about the ideas.

 

In the last of that article, the professor states that our nation would do well to heed Prof. Judith Curry’s words and stay out of the phony Paris Accords and stay away from all the Global Warming/Climate Change lies. She states very clearly that the IPCC cannot be taken seriously since their models are wrong since the climate is not warming to the extreme levels the IPCC and United Nations, Paris Accords would lead one to believe. In other words, the very ideas of Global Warming and Climate Change should be taken with a grain of salt as in today’s world they mean nothing more than taking money for NOTHING!

Pew Research: Americans Don’t Believe There’s A ‘97% Consensus of Climate Scientists

The study which concluded there’s 97% consensus of climate scientists believing the man-made global warming hypothesis is simply bogus. It’s laden with faulty research.Thankfully the American Public isn’t buying the 97% nonsense, according to a Pew study released earlier this week .

Any objective examination of the methodology of the study will conclude that the 97% consensus figure has no basis in fact. But sadly the present federal government, as well as liberals all across this nation believe the study and do not allow any discussion despite the fact that 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.

Just 27% of Americans say that almost all climate scientists agree human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change. This perception is at odds with a 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which accessed more than 9,000 scientific publications and concluded: ‘The science now shows with 95% certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Apparently Americans aren’t as stupid as climate scare-mongers, progressives, and Democratic Party politicians think we are.

The study reporting the 97% consensus, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,”  by John Cook and friends, published in 2013 by the University of Queensland was .

According to Watts Up With That, when the source data for the study was published online, the University of Queensland got so worried the study would be exposed they threatened a lawsuit over any use of Cook’s “97% consensus” data for a scientific rebuttal. That threat is antithetical to the scientific method, which says that, for a study to be valid, it must be possible to repeat it and achieve the same results as the initial study. But, the University of Queensland was hiding that Cook’s study was a qualitative study which relied on opinion and produced biased results.

Cook and his buddies looked at peer-reviewed studies and subjectively classified them as either agreeing or disagreeing with the climate change hypothesis. Based on the methodology the 97% figure was really 97% of the hand-picked studies they reviewed and they decided supported the hypothesis.

When investigative journalists at Popular Technology  looked into the 97% study, they found it falsely classified some of the scientists’ papers as supporting the global warming hypothesis. Instead of arriving at their own opinions the Popular Technology report relied on the opinions of scientists conducted the research and wrote the papers.

Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, aggressive climate change skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97 percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the “consensus” position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded:

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

A more extensive examination of the Cook study by the New American reported that, out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is not only less than 97% but it is less than 0.97%.

The crucial point here is the qualifying clause, “of those who have an opinion.” In other words, even the highly questionable Cook study doesn’t actually claim, as President Obama does, that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree.” In fact, when examined closely, one finds that the study says only one-third of the authors of the published research papers they examined expressed an opinion that the Cook team interpreted as either an implicit or explicit endorsement of AGW. So now its 97 percent of one-third of selected scientists in a sampling of research papers. That’s a far cry from the 97 percent of all scientists claimed by President Obama and many of the media stories. And, as we will show below, even this admitted dramatically lower consensus claimed by the study is fraught with problems and falls apart further under examination.

Another criticism of the Cook’s paper is it didn’t define the “consensus” they were looking for. Is the 97% for people who believe the global warming is real, or people who believe it’s real and caused by mankind?

There are scientists, for example, who believe the Earth just went through a warming period caused by high sunspot activity. Many of those scientists blaming sunspots either work or consult for the U.S. or British Governments. Those scientists believe that we have entered a period of low sunspot activity and that might cause a mini-ice age.

Princeton physicist William Happer in explained in Climate Depot, “if global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago.” Climate scientists are, of course, obsessed with man’s carbon dioxide emissions. But Happer says this is essentially nonsense. “All of the geological evidence indicates that CO2 is a minor player” in previous eras of warming, he said last week in a Climate Depot podcast. “We’ve had ice ages with 10 times more CO2 than we have today. That’s not supposed to happen, according to current computer models, but it did happen.”

The bottom line is that any objective examination of the methodology used by Cook and the University of Queensland will conclude that the 97% consensus figure has no basis in fact. And despite the fact that politicians and liberals are trying to shove the consensus down our throats, according to Pew Research, Americans aren’t buying it either.

Debunking Leonardo DiCaprio’s Climate Change Documentary

Leonardo DiCaprio released his climate change documentary, “Before the Flood,” on National Geographic.

The actor has become one the largest public faces pushing for action on man-made global warming.

I make a brief cameo in the movie so several friends asked how I felt being lumped in with the climate deniers. (I’ll be setting up my IMDb page any day now).

I simply commented that many climatologists believe the science isn’t settled. I guess that makes me a science denier and a shill for the fossil fuel industry.

 

To be honest, I hadn’t planned on watching “Before the Flood.” I assumed the film would spit out the same, tired narrative: Industrial progress is destroying the planet and Big Oil is funneling money to politicians and conservative organizations to stop meaningful action on global warming. But I did watch it and such is the case.

There are many claims worth addressing throughout the hour and a half long film. Here are some of the issues that warrant the most attention.icyalgore

Lifestyle Changes for Thee, but Not for Me

During a moment of self-reflection in the film, DiCaprio admitted his carbon footprint “is probably bigger than most people’s.”

Probably? Leo, you fly around the world on a private jet and have rented one of the world’s largest yachts on multiple occasions. You definitely have a larger footprint.

Yet, a theme throughout the documentary and its supporting website emphasizes lifestyle changes you should make to reduce global warming. The suggestions include: line-drying your clothes, buying a hybrid vehicle, reducing your air travel (and definitely don’t fly first class), buying less meat, and not drinking bottled water.

If people want to eat vegan and buy an energy-efficient dishwasher, that’s their prerogative. Instead, hypocritical elitists would rather tell you how to live your life and encourage government mandates and regulations to enforce those changes.

Not only do these policies restrict your individual freedoms, the film conveniently ignores the costs of these policies, which are significant.endthelie

Cumulatively, the federal government’s war on coal along with the regulations on oil and natural gas production, will drive energy costs higher for households and businesses, hitting low-income families hardest.

And what do we get for it all? Another gaping omission from “Beyond the Flood” is how taking action would actually make a difference. Or more accurately, make no difference at all. Even if the U.S. were somehow able to transition to a zero carbon dioxide economy, the planet would be a few tenths of a degree Celsius cooler by the year 2100.

Debunking Climate Alarmism

It wouldn’t be a climate documentary without hearing the phrase “The science is settled” or that “97 percent of climate scientists agree.” This 97 percent statistic is nothing more than a false talking point. The figure comes from a 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters that examines the abstracts of nearly 12,000 academic papers on climate change.

Of the more than 4,000 studies that expressed an opinion, “97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.” But that doesn’t mean 97 percent of climatologists endorse man-made, imminent catastrophic warming.

Experts have a wide range of theories as to the magnitude of warming, the causes, the rate of future warming, etc. To demonstrate just how bogus the 97 percent statistic is, David Legates, former director of Delaware’s Center for Climatic Research, examined the same papers. He found that a mere 1 percent of the 4,014 papers expressing an opinion on climate change claim that the majority of warming since 1950 is man-made.

Despite imagery in the documentary alluding to more frequent and intense natural disasters, the data show no trends for extreme weather events.

The current rate of sea level rise lies far beneath alarmist projections. Coral reefs are showing their resilience.

“Beyond the Flood” even pays lip service to now debunked climate research, the “hockey stick” graph. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used the hockey stick for years to illustrate rapid global warming, but it has proven it to be fabricated. Rather than interviewing climatologists who disagree with the concept of imminent catastrophic man-made warming, the documentary labels dissenters as scientifically ignorant deniers.global_warming_hoax

Carbon Dioxide Is Not Smog

The documentary’s disingenuous misrepresentation of carbon dioxide as a harmful pollutant is another reason not to take “Beyond the Flood” seriously. In DiCaprio’s trip to China to discuss how the country has surpassed the U.S. as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, almost the entire segment focuses on China’s “airpocalypse.”

The documentary shows China’s massive smog problem where air toxicity levels are high, people are wearing masks, schools have closed, and people can’t go to work. In the same clip, Ma Jun, a director with the Beijing-based nonprofit the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, remarks, “In China, people have concerns about climate change. But first and foremost, because their everyday life is affected.”

China’s environmental problems are not carbon dioxide problems.

Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas. It is a necessary component for photosynthesis and the growth of green vegetation.

There’s no denying China has serious air and water quality problems. But people aren’t wearing masks in China because they’re worried about carbon dioxide. They’re worried about smog. The technology exists to reduce such pollutants and most power plants in China have them installed. However, because it’s cheaper to run the power plant with the scrubbers off, operators do so. If there’s an environmental challenge in our present day that DiCaprio should address, it’s reducing the real pollutants that we know have harmful health impacts.

Developing Nations Want Affordable, Reliable Energy

Perhaps unintentionally, “Beyond the Flood” aptly depicts how energy impoverished the developing world is. More than 1.2 billion people in the world today have no access to electricity. Nearly 3 billion people rely on wood, agricultural residue, and cow dung (shown in the film) for cooking and heating.

One astounding fact DiCaprio says when speaking to a woman in New Delhi is that the number of people without electricity in India is equivalent to the entire population of the United States. It’s morally unconscionable to tell people with such low standards of living they effectively have to stay de-developed.

The priority for places like this is economic development and eradicating poverty. Affordable, dependable power is a staple input for that development. The developing world’s use of conventional fuels should be celebrated, not condemned. It is a sign of better standards of living. Intermittent, expensive renewable power is not going cut it.Global Warming Snow

In fact, the documentary makes note of Germany’s shift to more wind and solar but nothing of the high costs borne by taxpayers and ratepayers—as well as the country’s shift to more coal as the government decided to decommission its nuclear plants.

Renewables can be part of the energy supply, as can nuclear power, which is largely absent from the film. Nevertheless, meeting the world’s energy needs should be driven by market investments, not the government. Unfortunately, the marchers behind DiCaprio’s drumbeat will overlook this point.

Beyond the Flood, Don’t Believe the Hype

Riddled with inaccuracies, hypocrisies, and half-truths, “Before the Flood” is much like the climate debate itself: all hype, no substance. The bias isn’t surprising, but the fact that people will take this film seriously is.

Source: Debunking Leonardo DiCaprio’s Climate Change Documentary

Nonsensical Climate Change: Animal Farm Is Here! » Politichicks.com

In late June, an agreement was reached between the United States, Mexico, and Canada aimed at addressing the issue of climate change. The pledge calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from oil and related industries, along with the implementation of cross-border energy transmission systems and development of clean energy sources. Ironically, part of the inspiration for the deal was a desire to strengthen cooperation between the North American nations after an important US-Canadian energy project, the Keystone XL oil pipeline, was rejected by American President Barack Obama – a move that weakened American energy independence and had an as-yet unforeseen impact on domestic jobs.

This agreement is the latest in a series of environmentalist paranoia regarding climate change and human industrial activity in general. The people behind it labor under the delusion that cutting emissions of carbon dioxide is clearly more important than addressing the national security threat posed by Islamic terror, growing our economy, and other crucial concerns. They also suffer from the curious shared hallucination that North America is a planet, rather than one among six inhabited continents.

Now California has introduced the first bill of its kind, allowing for the prosecution of climate change opposition–basically making it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent. The bill 1161, California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, is essentially, another assault on businesses and organizations that possibly could directly or indirectly engage in “unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” the State Senate Rules Committee’s. This gobbledygook clears the way for litigations against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled” the public on the risks of climate change.  I see this as a prophecy for a California “Animal Farm”  the State has degenerated into totalitarian government.

Even if the US, Canada, and Mexico cut their greenhouse gas emissions drastically overnight – which no one is even proposing, in favor of more gradual reductions – its net effect on global human emissions would be negligible. There might even be negative reduction – emissions growth. That’s because developing economies with many times the population of North America, such as India and China, are aggressively industrializing and have shown no interest in hobbling their own growth in service to Western environmental concerns. Effectively, we can’t do anything to cut the amount of carbon dioxide that humanity pumps into the air.

global_warming_hoax

What we can do, unfortunately, is cripple the American economy at precisely the time it needs to be picking up steam. We have real international trade pressures coming from the aforementioned foreign powers – India and China – and we need to focus on being competitive with them. We also need to focus on maintaining the capacity for a strong, impregnable national defense. In a world of Islamic terrorism, to do any less is downright suicidal.

If these people really are so worried about the environment – a noble concern, so long as it is not placed above national security – then what they should really be pushing for is intelligent implementation of clean energy. Then it has to be done right, and it can’t come at the cost of throwing away our oil and gas industries overnight. The correct way to approach this challenge is to allow the free market to lead us into the future. We accomplish this by incentivizing clean energy development and deployment, offering tax credits to companies that do this work. As money flows into energy sources like wind and solar – naturally, not because the government mandates it – the market for dirtier sources will gradually diminish, giving businesses and workers in those industries needed time to retool and adjust to a changing energy economy. We can do this, but we must do it the right way – the capitalist way.

The most important effect of this strategy is that it preserves and even adds jobs in important industries, rather than sacrificing them on the altar of environmental awareness as punitive emissions caps against oil and gas do. We need to be looking at ways to strengthen and grow out economy while simultaneously addressing environmental issues, not throw one concern away in our need to worship the other. This is why the actions of the environmentalist left are irresponsible – not because it isn’t important to preserve and improve our environment, but because they’re going about it wrongly – and very dangerously.

Science Proves That Humans Are NOT the Cause of Climate Change

By Byron Claghorn

The Man-Made Climate Change and Global Warming hypothesis does not even qualify as a theory since these Global Warming Alarmists (GWA) have not been able to prove their case with actual scientific observations following accepted scientific method.  Instead the GWA rely on their own man-made computer models based on the shaky Premise and Assumptions that Man’s use of Fossil Fuels produces atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) that is now causing unlimited and catastrophic warming that will as a result devastate the Earth and its population later in this 21st Century when the CO2 concentration-level reaches or exceeds 600 ppm (parts-per- million).

 
 This premise that is at the very foundation of the GWA hypothesis and their own computer models is a very tentative link between Fossil Fuels and Climate Change that they have asserted as caused by Greenhouse Gases (only 1% of our atmosphere, 10,000 ppm) due to the Greenhouse Effect that occurs about 10 miles up at the top of our Troposphere.

The left-wing progressives, UN IPCC and the Environmentalists have politicized and completely ignored factual scientific proof and methods to push this GWA hypothesis and its premise for their own special interests under the banner of “Save Our Planet!”.   Most of the GWA are completely unaware of the actual solid scientific facts and can only parrot platitudes that they have been taught convinced that this subject is too complex for them to understand, except for those that push the GWA agenda who are fully aware that all these claims are unscientific and deliberate lies supported by Political Correctness, direct intimidation and broad propaganda spread by a willing or naïve media.

Partial GWA Truths:

Yes, the earth’s climate has Always Changed in its 4.5+ Billion year existence!

Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is caused by Greenhouse Gases, but it has and continues to be balanced providing the Earth and its citizens with a pleasant and habitable climate – Otherwise the earth’s global temperatures would be an estimated very cold and inhospitable -18 degrees C (i.e., -0.04 degrees F).

Yes, Al Gore and the other GWA are correct that there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the earth’s global temperature.   However, they have the actual correlation Backwards: They claim that increased concentrations of CO2 caused by Man & Fossil Fuels in the atmosphere causes increased warming temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.

In other words, they contend that Man & Fossil Fuels are creating sufficient quantities of CO2 that upset the natural balance of the Greenhouse Effect which causes it to continue to accumulate atmospheric heat leading to unending and catastrophic warming.

Factual Proven Science and Empirically Validated Observations:

The highly-qualified and honest scientists that have analyzed several of the ice-core samples covering 800,00 years of history in their labs confirm there is a correlation between CO2 and Temperatures-levels which correspond to time periods accurately reconstructed by other highly-qualified and honest scientists.

It turns out that the actual correlation is that: As the Sun’s rays increase the Temperature that warms the oceans evaporating both water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) allowing it to enter the atmosphere Naturally The concentration of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Increased!

This factual scientifically-researched correlation is precisely the OPPOSITE of the Global Warming hypothesis promoted by Al Gore and the rest of the GWA because rigorous scientific methods were applied!  Both Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) are greenhouse gases with naturally-produced Water Vapor being overwhelmingly the most significant contributor to the Greenhouse Effect.

Note: Carbon Dioxide LAGS  Increases in Temperature, so Temperature Increase is the Cause for Increased Atmospheric CO2, Not the Other-Way-Around as Claimed by Al Gore & the GWA!

Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is scientifically considered a TRACE Gas at 400 ppm (i.e., 0.04%) in our atmosphere with most of it (95%) caused Naturally (i.e., 0.038%, 380 ppm) – Leaving only an Extremely Trace amount (i.e., 0.002%, 20 ppm) provided by Man!   The Man-made contribution is insignificant to the proven balanced Greenhouse Effect where the most accurate Satellite and Weather Balloon measurement of Global Temperatures show normal and balanced temperatures all within the tolerance of natural variation.

If the GWA hypothesis regarding CO2 in our planet’s troposphere were correct, high-levels of increased temperatures would appear here – It is not happening folks, the GWA and UN IPCC are again ignoring actual science and scientific methods to report the politically-inspired theme of Global Warming and a coming Climate Catastrophe (unless you give them trillions of taxpayer dollars, of course!).

Net-Net: Since atmospheric CO2 is scientifically proven to NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING – Man and his use of Fossil Fuels are Cleared as a significant Cause for Climate Change; Also, the GWA Climate Models are fully-invested and based upon this failed Premise regarding Carbon Dioxide which are likewise proven false since: A hypothesis and its models that are based on a false premise and assumptions must also be considered to be invalid. However, the GWA continue to ignore the scientific facts and push their preferred political positions to advance their own political agendas.

Our Sun and its billions of past and future Solar Cycles that provide alternating warming Solar Maximums followed by cooling Solar Minimums have and continue to be the Primary Driver of Climate Changes on Earth and throughout our Solar System.

The Modern Grand Solar Maximum (1850 AD to the Present) peaked in 1998 with a 1-degree F drop in Global Temperature – A flat trend that is now predicted to be a transition into the next cooler Modern Solar Minimum — Much like the very similar warm Medieval Grand Solar Maximum did a thousand years before (900 AD – 1300 AD ) which was followed by its next extremely cold Solar Minimum dubbed “The Little Ice Age” (1300 AD – 1850).

Don’t just take my word for this, you should use the link below to view an excellent and scientifically-based Video by the actual professional Climate & Solar Scientists that analyzed many of the Ice-Core Samples and who have received NASA awards of Excellent for their work on Satellite and Global Temperature measurement as well as other related Climate Research:

CLICK ON THIS LINK to have expert and honest Climate Scientists amplify and verify the above points!

Likewise, there is no Climate Crisis at 600+ ppm as claimed by the GWA, since Carbon Dioxide is still a trace gas and has an insignificant impact on Climate.   CO2 is not a pollutant and it is good for Plants, Animals and Humans since the well-known Photosynthesis process absorbs CO2, water and light to produce the Oxygen we breath as well as absorbs the CO2 we exhale.

Likewise the GWA needs to stop demonizing the element Carbon (C) since it is essential to all life on Earth and all living things, including you and I, which are Carbon-Structures.

 

Carbon is the most-flexible element that recombines to form a vast number of useful compounds with almost 10-Million compounds described to date that is still a fraction of possible future compounds such as: soft pencil leads, hard diamonds, lightweight composite aircraft parts, lubricants, Nanotubes, Buckminster Fullerene “Buckeyballs”, even advanced tennis racquets (e.g., Graphene), …, etc.

In Conclusion: The allegiance to the politically-motivated ‘Anthropocentric Climate Change’ myth is preventing a massive improvement in our Economy by political constraints placed on our vast energy resources. We are now being urged by politicians and the GWA to further waste huge amounts of taxpayer money on a “Fool’s Errand” to stop “Man-Made Climate Change”, a non-existent threat and impractical task since we cannot control the Sun’s Energy, the Earth’s Tilt and Orbit which are the actual forces of only ‘Natural Climate Change’.

 

Byron Claghorn

Byron Claghorn is an experienced Business Analyst, Project Manager and Technical Writer. With a keen interest in science, the Global Warming and Man-Made Climate Change claims did not ‘Ring True’, so he has focused much time and effort in its research and reporting in this series of articles: “Man-Made Climate Change? – The Science on the Other Side of the Coin”. As a result of trying to ‘Connect the Dots’ in this highly politicized subject of “Climate Change”, this series will both inform as well as provide an example of how you can verify these facts, plus empower you to continue to question and ‘Connect your own Dots’ on this subject.