How the Debate on Climate Change Is Cooling Down

The models predicting certain environmental doom were wrong, and they’ve been wrong for a while.

Marian L. Tupy

by Marian L. Tupy

In a previous column, I noted that the typical audience reaction to my talks about the improving state of the world is not joy and thankfulness for the progress that humanity is making in tackling age-old problems such as infant mortality, malnutrition, and illiteracy. Rather, it is the concern about the exhaustion of natural resources and the supposedly irreparable harm that humanity is causing to the environment.

Apocalyptic warnings about the end of the world as we know it are as old as humanity itself, but recent news should give the doomsayers some food for thought and lower the temperature, so to speak, in the debate about global warming and its future effects on the planet.

The Models Were Wrong

In a new study that was published in the journal Nature Geoscience, leading climate scientists have adjusted their previous predictions about global warming and stated that the worst impacts of climate change are still avoidable. Professor Michael Grubb, an international energy and climate change scientist at University College London, said that previous scientific estimates were incorrect because they were based on computer models that were running “on the hot side.”

According to the new estimates, the world is more likely than previously thought to achieve the main goal of the 2015 Paris agreement and limit global warming to only 1.5°C higher than was the case in the pre-industrial era. Only two years ago, many scientists dismissed the 1.5°C goal as too optimistic and Professor Grubb went as far to say that “all the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5°C” is unattainable.

While it is true that the average global temperature is 0.9°C higher than in the pre-industrial era, the scientists now admit that there was a slowdown in warming in the 15 years prior to 2014 – a slowdown that the models did not predict or account for. Professor Myles Allen, another one of the study’s authors, said “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

What has changed in the model forecasts since the Paris summit in 2015? The data showing that the climate models are running “on the hot side” has been available for years. In 2015, my colleagues Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger noted that climate models have been overestimating the rate of warming for decades. In 2016, John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville testified before the US Congress that the climate models were inaccurate. For their trouble, all three have been labeled “climate change deniers.”

The Nature Geoscience study suggests that humanity has more time to transition away from fossil fuels. Should it? That’s debatable, argues William Nordhaus, a professor of economics at Yale University, and his coauthor Andrew Moffatt, in a recently released paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The paper combines econometric and climate models to estimate the future impact of global warming on worldwide income.

The Laws of Economics Still Apply

By studying 36 estimates of the costs of global warming, the pair predicts that 3°C warming will reduce global income by 2.04 percent and 6°C warming will reduce global income by 8.16 percent by 2100. Nordhaus and Moffatt’s estimates parallel the broad consensus. For example, the IPCC in their Fourth Report estimated that global “mean losses could be 1 to 5 percent of GDP for 4°C of warming”.

As Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine calculates, current global average income per capita is about $10,000. If the world grows at 3 percent per year over the next 80 years or so, global average income per capita will rise to $97,000. According to Nordhaus and Moffatt’s estimations, therefore, an increase in global temperature by 3°C would reduce global average income per capita by $2,000 to $95,000. A 6°C increase in global temperature would reduce global average income per capita by $8,000 to $89,000.

“We have a predicament,” Bailey concludes. “How much are we willing to spend in order to make those living in 2100, who will likely be at least nine times richer than us today, $2,000 better off?”

That is not a purely academic question. Thanks to the concerns over global warming, governments throughout the world have been busy imposing serious additional costs on economic development and reducing real living standards of ordinary people so as to facilitate the fastest possible transition away from fossil fuels. The above studies add to the complexity surrounding the subject of global warming and human response to it. They also strengthen the case of those who argue that any such transition should be driven by technological change, not government mandates.

Reprinted from CapX

Marian L. Tupy

Marian L. Tupy

Marian L. Tupy is the editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

Scientists concede climate models wrong

The scientific evidence is mounting against the global warming narrative and climate campaigners don’t like it.

In a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, a group of scientists concede that climate computer models have been projecting warmer temperatures than observations show for decades.

This is a crucial issue.  If the climate is not as sensitive to atmospheric CO2 as campaigners have claimed, their predictions of doom collapse.

We shared an article by James Delinpole on CFACT’s Facebook page.

“One researcher,” Delingpole writes, “from the alarmist side of the argument, not the skeptical one – has described the paper’s conclusion as ‘breathtaking’ in its implications. He’s right. The scientists who’ve written this paper aren’t climate skeptics. They’re longstanding warmists, implacable foes of climate skeptics, and they’re also actually the people responsible for producing the IPCC’s carbon budget.

In other words, this represents the most massive climbdown from the alarmist camp.”

At the same time this meltdown is taking place, the scientific and historical data shows that recent hurricane activity, while heart-wrenching to watch on our news, is operating well within historic norms.

CFACT senior policy advisor Paul Driessen published a piece at Fox News in which he explains:

“The Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico are warm enough every summer to produce major hurricanes, says climatologist Roy Spencer. But you also need other conditions that have unknown origins and mechanisms: pre-existing cyclonic circulation off the African coast, upper atmospheric calm, and sea surface temperatures that change on a cyclical basis in various regions, to name just a few. The combination of all these factors – plus weather fronts and land masses along the way – determines whether a hurricane arises, how strong it gets, how long it lasts and what track it follows.”

Facts are powerful things.

On global warming they are finally being heard.

RELATED ARTICLE: Poll: Over 40 percent of Canadians think science is “a matter of opinion”

Wall Street Journal gets it wrong Trump still out of Paris Climate Agreement

The Wall Street Journal caused quite a kerfuffle over the weekend when it reported that “the Trump administration is considering staying in the Paris agreement.”

They got it wrong.

The WSJ based its reporting on statements by attendees at a climate conference in Montreal and by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who said the President is “open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others on what we all agree is still a challenging issue.”

However, nothing had changed in the President’s position.

President Trump spotted the inherent flaws in the UN’s Paris Climate Agreement for himself and vowed to pull the U.S. out while he was still a candidate.

White House Economic Adviser Gary Cohn corrected the record saying, “We are withdrawing, and we made that as clear as it can be. I don’t know how to say it any more clearly.”  We posted details at CFACT.org.

While the UN and American climate establishment would like nothing better than for Trump to reverse course on Paris, this appears to have been wishful thinking on their part.  The conditions under which President Trump might reconsider his approach to international climate politics that Secretary Tillerson reiterated presents no small hurdle.

The President is absolutely correct that Paris is a bad deal for America.  It would limit U.S. emissions now, while allowing countries such as China and India to dramatically increase theirs.  At the same time the U.S. would be expected to pay out huge sums of money to UN programs while again China, India and the rest get a pass.  President Obama sent the UN $1 billion for its Green Climate Fund on his way out the door.

The Paris Agreement is and always was a bad deal for America.  If the President sticks to his guns there’s no way back in.

Trump Should End All Speculation on Paris Agreement by Withdrawing From UN Framework Convention

Over the weekend, to the shock of many observers and loyal members of President Donald Trump’s base, The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration was seeking to avoid withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.

Top White House economic adviser Gary Cohn quickly sought to squelch these rumors, saying, “We are withdrawing, and we made that as clear as it can be. I don’t know how to say it any more clearly.”

Cohn’s assertion of U.S. withdrawal is encouraging, but if the Trump administration wants to end all internal and external speculation over Paris, it should withdraw from the entire United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Moreover, if the administration wants to achieve its goal of 3 percent economic growth and give the coal industry an opportunity to compete, withdrawal from Paris and the Framework Convention is critical.

When President Barack Obama joined the Paris accord in 2016, he avoided sending the agreement to the Senate for advice and consent as the Constitution requires for treaties. The agreement committed the U.S. to reducing greenhouse gas levels across the entire economy by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025, all without legislative consent.

Following through to meet these targets would require the Trump administration to enforce a number of costly Obama-era energy regulations. Trump has promised to end such regulations—indeed, they would make no noticeable impact on global temperatures.

While the Paris Agreement is nonbinding, remaining in the agreement would provide justification for a future administration to pile additional climate regulations on the energy industry—on top of those that the Obama administration promulgated. Thus, it is essential to withdraw.

Trump campaigned on “canceling” the global warming agreement and then followed through by announcing his intensions to withdraw from the Rose Garden in June. Foreign leaders immediately slammed the decision, calling the move “a major fault against humanity and against our planet.”

Yet these criticisms proved to be an act of hypocrisy. According to a recent article in Nature“All major industrialized countries are failing to meet the pledges they made to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”

And that’s just the industrialized world. To achieve any meaningful reduction in warming by reducing greenhouse gases, developing countries would have to remain de-developed or meet their growing energy needs without coal, oil, or natural gas.

Conventional fuels will be essential to meeting future energy needs in the developing world, where more than 1.2 billion people (17 percent of the global population) do not have access to reliable electricity. Pretending otherwise is simply ignoring reality.

The German environmental and human rights group Urgewald projects that 1,600 new coal-fired generation plants are either under construction or planned, resulting in 840,000 megawatts of new capacity.

It estimates that these new plants represent a 43 percent global expansion of coal spread across 62 different countries, 14 of which previously have not had any coal power at all.

For countries that do not have access to reliable power, the imminent threat of energy poverty is much more pressing than reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Paris Agreement is not just poor economic and climate policy for the United States—it’s poor policy for the rest of the world, too.

To formally leave Paris, the U.S. must wait until November 2019 to submit a notice of withdrawal. The U.S. would then officially exit the agreement one year later.

Having such a large window of time leaves more opportunities for discussions of avoiding withdrawal, or potentially seeking a renegotiation of the accord. But renegotiating the agreement is a nonstarter, as there are no terms that could possibly assuage the economic concerns posed by the deal or achieve any meaningful climate benefit.

Rather than wait, there is a shorter, more effective solution than just withdrawing from Paris. Trump could end all speculation by officially withdrawing from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which includes the Paris Agreement.

Withdrawal from the Framework Convention would enter into force one year after the secretary-general of the United Nations receives notification.

Such a withdrawal would send a clear signal throughout the U.S. government, to the business community, and to every foreign leader that the current international approach to climate change is costly, ineffective, and unworkable.

COMMENTARY BYPortrait of Nicolas Loris

Nicolas Loris

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

Some Recent Energy & Environmental News

The newest edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is now online.

Once again, there were so many worthwhile articles that it was quite challenging to pick out a few to be highlighted.

Some of the more interesting energy articles in this issue are:

Property and Wind Turbines: a Missing Point in the Discussion

Military Officials Explain Concerns with Wind Turbines (with good pictures)

NC & NYS Dealing with Military-Wind Energy conflicts

The Failure of RGGI

Scientific Critique of Wind Project Bird & Bat Study

Scientists who publicly question solar are silenced

Green Delusions and the Wind Bully

The Climate Alarmists’ Gross Perversion of the Word “Clean”

Peer Reviewed Study: Altered brain connectivity due to wind turbines

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Climate Models Over-Estimated Warming

Moving the Goalposts in the Climate Change Debate

Climate Science Comes Up Short

The totalitarianism of the environmentalists

“Science” journals stung again

Al Gore’s Climate Sequel Misses a Few Inconvenient Facts

Simplified Explanations of the Falsified Claims of Human Caused Global Warming

NYT guilty of large screw-up on climate-change story

Expose on Bill McKibben (a key energy and environmental player)

Lindzen: On the ‘Death of Skepticism’ Concerning Climate Hysteria

Not Sea Levels, Again!

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Gore’s new health warning: ‘Every organ system can be affected by climate change’

In Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power”, the former Vice President features a professor of pediatrics warning that global warming is impacting our health.

“Every organ system can be affected by climate change. When I say that, I get goosebumps,” says Pediatrician Susan Pacheco, a professor of pediatrics at University of Texas McGovern Medical School, in Gore’s new book. Gore’s book features Pacheco and her climate change health warnings and touts the fact that the professor was inspired to get involved in climate activist after seeing his original film. The book is a companion to Gore’s new film being released this month, a sequel to his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.”  The book is being billed as “Your action handbook to learn the science, find your voice, and help solve the climate crisis.” Gore’s new book excerpts available here. Excerpts of Gore reading the book available here.

Image result for inconvenient sequel book

Gore wrote, “The obvious and overwhelming evidence of the damage we are causing is now increasingly impossible for reasonable people to ignore. It is widely know by now that there is a nearly unanimous view among all scientists authoring peer-reviewed articles related to the climate crisis that it threatens our future, that human activists are largely if not entirely responsible, and that action is needed to urgently prevent catastrophic harm it is already starting to bring.” (Climate Depot Note: Blaming extreme weather on “climate change” is not supported by evidence. & Climate Depot has repeatedly debunked Gore’s climate claimsGore admits Paris pact symbolic – Makes incorrect claims about Greenland, sea levels & extreme weather And here: Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims And Here  Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit)

Pacheco warns in Gore’s new book that climate change is already making us sick. “There’s heart disease, there’s lung disease, there’s kidney disease,” she says in Gore’s book. Gore writes that Pacheco “didn’t become concerned with climate science until 2006. Her eldest son was learning about climate change in school,, so she took the family to see An Inconvenient Truth.”

Gore wrote that “this trip to the theater proved to be a wake-up call. She had never paid much attention to climate science, but after seeing the move she found herself preoccupied by it. As time passed, she decided she needed to talk action, and applied to take part in the second-ever Climate Reality Leadership Corps, a training program I led in Nashville in 2006.”

“Pacheco became convinced she could see the effects in her own clinic’s waiting room, in the Texas children she saw suffering from asthma, heat sensitivity, and allergies. Children and the elderly, she discovered, tend to be the most vulnerable. And while many adults have lived for years in an environment less affected by climate change, today’s youth will grow up with an entire lifetime of exposure. The potential for damage and illness, she suspects, is much higher,” Gore wrote.

“Pacheco also founded the Texas Coalition for Climate Change Awareness. In 2013, the White House bestowed Pacheco with the illustrious “Champions of Change” award in recognition of her efforts,” Gore wrote.

Other activists have warned of similar climate impacts. UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Michael Oppenheimer warned in 2014: “In fact, anybody who eats is under threat from climate change.” (Also see: Scientist to the Hollywood Stars: UN IPCC’s Michael Oppenheimer ‘was the holder of the ‘Barbra Streisand Chair of Environmental Studies’ at Environmental Defense Fund’)

Related Links: 

Watch: Skeptic Morano confronts Gore with ‘Climate Hustle’ DVD in Australia! Gore refuses to accept, departs in SUV

Watch: Morano in Australia on Sky News TV Rips Gore’s Claims

Note: Al Gore accused of using ‘weather-porn to fuel superstitious belief’ in Aussie speech)

UK Daily Mail cites Depot: Al Gore compares climate battle to great moral causes

Australian Herald Sun

Listen: Gore & UN tout ‘modern witchcraft’ – Morano on Aussie’s Alan Jones radio promotes Climate Hustle & Rips Gore

WND: AL GORE: GLOBAL WARMING FIGHT LIKE SLAVERY, CIVIL RIGHTS

Fox News features Climate Depot on Gore speech in Australia

Sky News: Watch: Morano in Australia on Sky News TV Rips Gore’s Claims: ‘As CO2 has risen, extreme weather has actually declined’

Canada Free Press

Drudge Report: www.DrudgeReport.com

Independent Journal Review  – Al  Gore Just Compared Climate Change Activism to the Fight Against Slavery

The Blaze: Al Gore just compared climate change to this ‘great moral cause’

The Daily Caller – Al Gore Likened The Climate Change Movement To Campaign Ending Slavery

Watch: Morano on TV in Australia on meeting Al Gore: Gore attempts to ‘intimidate, silence & ignore’ – Liz Wheeler’s ‘Tipping Point’ show – One America News Network – Monday July 17, 2017

Paris climate deal exit by Trump reversible, French president believes – Morano responds

Rush Limbaugh: ‘Algore’s Back — And More Insane Than Ever’ – Links To Climate Depot Report

Gore ‘insanity and hypocrisy down under’ – Al Gore is jetting around the land Down Under, promoting his new climate chaos film and claiming manmade pollution is equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs going off daily! Australian heat waves are now five times more likely because of manmade global warming! Teachers and journalists get free passes to Gore’s events, to get their propaganda talking points, but no one is allowed to record any part of his talks. When Climate Depot’s Marc Morano offered him a free DVD of the Climate Hustle documentary film, a scowling Al Gore turned and headed to his SUV and private jet.

Al Gore accused of using ‘weather-porn to fuel superstitious belief’ in Aussie speech

Hurricane Harvey nature — Not man

How many solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars would we have needed in order to prevent the recent tragic flooding of Houston?

That question is absurd, but that is exactly the kind of daffy reasoning you’ll get when you ask climate campaigners to talk about a tragedy like Hurricane Harvey.

New York Times climate blogger Andrew Revkin joined meteorologists Eric Holthaus and Marshall Shepherd for a podcast blaming Harvey on global warming.  They called for rushing out so-called “attribution studies” linking Harvey to climate change … … which of course, in their minds, is largely your fault.

They want to strike while Harvey is fresh in our collective minds.  Not to worry, they say, all these “studies” will be “peer reviewed” (no doubt from their friends in the alarmist movement).  Oddly, they decried Houston’s dense urbanization.  Usually team warming calls for us all to crowd together as closely as possible to “decrease our carbon footprints.”  Has the wind shifted on that one?

Marc Morano is posting details about climate scientist Michael Mann’s, and the efforts of other alarmists, to blame Harvey on global warming over at Climate Depot.  Check in frequently for updates as they break.

That Harvey’s flooding was anthropogenic, rather than natural, is nonsense.

As Harvey made landfall, CFACT sent out a reminder of the Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 that leveled the city; killing six to twelve thousand Texans.  Parts of America lie in areas where tropical revolving storms are likely.  The entire eastern seaboard is to some degree perpetually vulnerable.

Recently America went 4,324 days without a major hurricane, a natural occurrence that confounded the global warming narrative.  The warming crowd was talking about never-ending Texas drought.  Look how quickly they’ve switched to a future of extreme rain!  They’re counting on us to have short memories.

Former NASA climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, who manages temperature satellites at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, posted a graph plotting major Texas hurricane strikes (in red) with Gulf of Mexico water temperatures.  The graph (below) shows no correlation between hurricanes and the naturally fluctuating temperature of the Gulf.

Dr. Spencer also recently wrote a new book, An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy, which is a direct takedown of the many deceptions and outright lies in Al Gore’s recent Inconvenient Sequel.  We recommend you get a copy for yourself at Amazon.  Dr. Spencer’s book has become a best-seller and is out-selling the book Gore had published to accompany his film.

The massive flooding in Houston may become the most expensive natural disaster in American history.  There is a simple reason for this.  The property under water in Houston has become extremely valuable.  Houston developing into a valuable gem of a city is an example of something truly man-made.  So is the massive relief and recovery effort now underway.  Neither would be possible without the power of the free market the warming folks seek to destroy.

Houston is suffering.  Texans needs all of our prayers and assistance.

Thank you to everyone in Texas ferrying people to safety in their own small boats, opening their homes, businesses and churches to those needing shelter, and doing all they can to help.  You are, unlike the climate hustlers seeking to exploit this hurricane for shallow political purposes, an inspiration to us all.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas Major Hurricane Intensity Not Related to Gulf Water Temperatures

As Houston Reels From Harvey, Here’s Where Relief Funding Stands

Hurricane Harvey — Devastating. Not unprecedented

Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas as a category four hurricane, ending America’s 4,324 day major hurricane drought.

Parts of Texas are in for a walloping.

The National Weather Service described the hurricane as “about as fierce as they come” … and they are right.

Hurricane Harvey is severe, entirely natural — and not unprecedented.

In 1900, America’s deadliest ever hurricane devastated Galveston, Texas.

Galveston after the September 8, 1900, hurricane. Texas State Library photo.

The practice of naming hurricanes was not yet in vogue, but this category four hurricane didn’t need a name to become a true human tragedy.

The storm brought 145 mile per hour winds and a 15 foot storm surge which flooded the city.

Estimates range from 6,000 to 12,000 dead. The loss of life was so extreme that Texans couldn’t cope with the sheer number of bodies. They were forced to resort to mass graves, barges for mass burials at sea, and mass funeral pyres on the beach. The loss of homes, life and property was staggering.

The City of Galveston rose again, but never fully regained its former prominence.

As can be expected, already climate campaigners are rushing to attribute Hurricane Harvey to global warming.

This is nonsense.

Exploiting the suffering in Texas for propaganda purposes is both shameless and insensitive; just as exploiting the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy was in the past.

In truth, America recently enjoyed a prolonged period during which no higher level hurricane made landfall. The last was Hurricane Wilma which struck Florida on October 24, 2005 – 12 years ago.

This has been very inconvenient for Al Gore and others anxious to hype natural weather tragedies as the product of man-made global warming.

Team warming’s climate simulations have not only failed to predict America’s prolonged hurricane drought, but also the full gamut of extreme weather events which have been on the whole historically benign.  They’d do better tossing coins.

The good news is that although there is heart-rending suffering and hardship ahead for Texas, we can be confident we will not see the kind of suffering the Great Galveston Hurricane caused 117 years ago.

The economic might and advanced technology we have at our disposal, thanks to our free markets (which the Greens despise), is there to provide warning in time for people to prepare and evacuate.  Today we are able to rush in help and resources enabling people to cope with the storm and recover.

Meteorology is also a far more advanced, solid discipline than flimsy climate science.  When meteorologists use short-term computer models, they are actually able to accurately project hurricane paths they save lives.

An yone telling you that Hurricane Harvey would have been meaningfully less ferocious in any way had we never had the industrial revolution, or harnessed energy to serve mankind, is selling something. Something you don’t want to buy.

In fact, the reverse is true. Hurricane Harvey is natural. The ability to cope with it is man-made.

The ability of free market capitalism to provide for people in need is unmatched.

The financial loss of a Hurricane like Harvey can today be greater than ever before. There’s a simple reason for that. It’s NOT because of the size or strength of the storm. It’s because the strength of our economy has dramatically increased the value of the property in the hurricane’s path. There goes the power of the free market again. There’s no economic force to match it.

Today our thoughts, prayers and assistance must be with those whom Harvey strikes.

And to anyone looking to exploit this hurricane to push global warming, Socialism, or to make their fortune from government subsidies, we say:

DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS!

Fact Checking Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’

Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Sequel, is riddled with junk science and hysterical alarmism.

Sadly, Gore plans to inflict his self-aggrandizing propaganda film on our kids.

Now you have a means to fight back!

Marc Morano posted a detailed review and fact check of Gore’s Hollywood-hyped ‘masterpiece’ over at CFACT’s Climate Depot.

Marc pulled from our detailed archives to provide facts, figures and graphs that dispel Gore’s horror stories.

No Al, whether its glaciers, ice, flooding, war, polar bears, you name it, it’s your film, not the planet, that’s full of hot air. And CFACT’s special report takes down your hype with hard facts!

Gore is particularly shameless about blaming extreme natural weather events on global warming — even though they would have occurred whether people walked the Earth or not.

Read our Climate Depot special report for yourself, and share it with your friends, family and neighbors.

Arm yourself with the facts today!

My talk at Google on the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I had spoken at Google on the moral case for fossil fuels. My talk just went up on their YouTube​ page! You can watch it here.

If you watch it and like it I hope you click thumbs up and make a comment. It would be really cool to get this video to ascend the ranks of the Google Author talks

Thanks again to Dan Hackney for getting me the invite.

Two Great Videos from Kansas Strong

Recently, I received the following note from Warren Martin, Executive Director of Kansas Strong, “a nonprofit organization voluntarily funded by oil and natural gas producers in Kansas” that “works to educate and inform people about the important role our industry plays in their live.”:

“As a philosophy graduate myself, I found Alex Epstein’s book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels very compelling and informative. His book and additional resources have played a major role in my efforts with Kansas Strong to promote the Kansas oil & gas industry. Alex’s perspective, initiatives and data have been a tremendous asset in our efforts to reframe the issue and emphasize the importance oil and natural gas have on our day to day lives. We have developed videos, articles, print campaigns and keynote presentations that delve into the everyday lives of everyday people to show how vital oil and natural gas is to how they live. It is far more than the price at the pump. It enables people to maximize their lives. Whether you look at life expectancy, infant birth rates, quality of life or numerous other data points, oil and natural gas have played a major role in improving our lives and enabling, as Alex says, ‘human flourishing.’ Alex’s work has proven to be an extraordinary resource for our efforts to engage the public in creative ways to begin conversations, facilitate education and challenge misconceptions about the industry!” -Warren Martin

Kansas Strong has done an outstanding job of putting these ideas into practice in two of their recent videos.

In this video, they take the moral high ground on environmental issues, pointing out that “the issue is not a choice between the environment and the industry. Nor is it about protecting the environment from the industry. The real issue we should be discussion is how is the oil and gas industry working to create the best environment for humanity?”

One of the tactics I use to get people to appreciate the vital importance of fossil fuels is I take them on an “oil walk,” where I go step-by-step through their day, pointing to all of the things in their lives made from petroleum. This video does a great job of visualizing the omnipresence of oil products, ending with the tagline “Petroleum. It’s Part of Everything We Do.”

I hope you watch both videos. This is the sort of impactful content that’s possible when you learn how to reframe the debate in pro-human, whole-picture terms. I’m excited to see much more of this kind of messaging from the industry in the future.

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready,here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate.

If you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

2. Hold a free Lunch-and-Learn (inside or outside the industry).

This program contains one of my favorite debates along with some “cheat sheets” to help you make the moral case for fossil fuels in your professional and personal life more easily than you thought possible. You can have access to the entire program right now. By the end of the session you and your team will:

  • gain a deeper sense of meaning from their work
  • be able to turn fossil fuel skeptics into fossil fuel supporters
  • learn the secrets to having constructive conversations about energy instead of frustrating fights

Click here to sign up for the free program.

3. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

Education vs. Indoctrination

We can no longer trust our most fundamental institutions.

David Wojick, a brilliant mathematician and CFACT contributor, has posted an important series of articles at CFACT.org focusing on the shocking way government and educational institutions are indoctrinating students with unsound global warming talking points.

Dr. Wojick’s latest piece focuses on lesson plans from the National Academy of Sciences that reveal “NAS has clearly lost sight of its role as the trusted science advisor to the US Government.”

NAS has created a “webquest” for children that takes them on a journey into the realm of junk science.  As Dr. Wojick points out, the “quest” gives children no chance of encountering sound science.  It is all about indoctrination, not education.

In is column “The National Academy of Sciences teaches climate advocacy, not science” Dr. Wojick writes:

The prestigious US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is off the rails when it comes to teaching kids about climate change. They have an exhaustive lesson plan for middle and high school kids that teaches a great deal of alarmist advocacy and very little science. NAS has clearly lost sight of its role as the trusted science advisor to the US Government. Al Gore could have written this lesson.

The lesson plan is called Climate Change Webquest. As the name “Webquest” suggests, it is basically a framework that ties together a lot of alarmist websites, which the students go to, to find answers for specific questions. (Some of these sites are not suitable for middle schoolers, but then neither is the framework.)

The structure of the framework gives away the game. The Webquest is supposed to be undertaken by a group of five students, each of which plays a specific role. Here are the roles:

1. Climate Scientist
2. Policy Analyst (!)
3. Economist
4. Energy Expert
5. Urban Planner

Clearly this is about policy, not science. In fact the scientist’s primary role is merely to saythat CO2 emissions are creating dangerous climate change. Then the other four players try to redesign society in order to solve this bogus problem. Their product is a “strategy portfolio,” including proposed new laws.

Here’s the problem.

While those who value freedom master the ins and outs of science and policy, the Left masters procedure and institutional control.

To compete we need to become procedural experts ourselves and return our institutions to their genuine missions.

The antidote to Al Gore

Al Gore’s propaganda-laden Inconvenient Sequel is now playing in theaters coast to coast.

It’s bombing – namely because Gore provided a miserable movie experience whether you’re left, right, or center.

But this is no implausible science-fiction film that will just fade away into obscurity.  This is an implausible science-fiction film that will be relentlessly pushed into theaters, classrooms, televisions, and devices of all makes and sizes.

Not because the movie is interesting or accurate, but because of the Green-Left’s desire to use the falsehoods it contains to influence the minds of the American people, and others all around the world.

Fortunately, CFACT has an antidote!

In addition to being available on DVD, Blu-ray, and streaming on our own movie website, we are excited to announce that CFACT’s groundbreaking Climate Hustle documentary is also now available on iTunesVimeoAmazonGoogle PlayYouTubeSteamChristian Cinema and more!

Climate Hustle Trailer:

Unlike Gore’s unscientific climate narrative, Climate Hustle is grounded in solid facts that expose the global warming con game like no movie before or since.

And unlike Gore’s joyless, boring work of self-promotion, nearly everyone who sees our film agrees Climate Hustle doesn’t just inform, but it’s also fun to watch! The film currently has an 81% Five-Star rating on Amazon!

Have you seen Climate Hustle yet?  Now’s the time!

Do you know someone who needs to be inoculated against Gore and Company’s attempt to infect them with junk science and weather scares?

Get them a copy … don’t let Gore hustle them!

Help spread the word that Climate Hustle is now easier than ever to see.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Don’t Believe the Hysteria Over Carbon Dioxide

Black Conservatives Say Al Gore ‘Made A Living Peddling Lies’ About Global Warming

‘Environmental Microaggressions’ Likely if Professors Assign Books by ‘White Cisgender’ Males

Climate Depot takes on Gore, NYT and the Climate Hustlers

CFACT is on a roll over at Climate Depot.

Marc Morano has been so effective that he’s been marked for death!

I kid you not.

Climate campaigner John Gilkinson actually called for future international political trials at the Hague and for Marc to be executed along with a select few who are also skilled at correcting the record on climate.

Randy Olson, another member of the warming elite, lamented that Morano is “beating the hell out of the climate movement” and conceded that it is a “myth” that skeptics are better funded (it’s not even close).

When Al Gore’s sequel opened CFACT leapt into action; exposing the movie’s inaccuracies and outright lies.  When the movie bombed, Morano pounced and made sure everyone knew it.

For the record, Gore’s sequel came out at number 15.  When CFACT’s Climate Hustle hit theaters it came in at number one per screen and it was shown in over 400 theaters nationwide!

Then the New York Times put out a made up story that the Trump Administration was trying to hide a new government climate report which had to be leaked.  The truth was the report was online the entire time.  Marc pounced again and the din grew so loud the Times had to issue a correction.

The real story about this climate report is not whether it leaked or not (it didn’t), it’s that the report itself is a hustle.  It’s loaded with shrill warming rhetoric without hard science to back it up.  It’s propaganda.  Marc posted a full report that is a devastating take down of these government bureaucrats shoddy attempt to ramp up global warming alarm.

All of this reporting and more has been on the Drudge Report numerous times and Marc is in demand for media commentary.

CFACT’s Climate Depot is red hot right now.

This is prime time to visit the Depot and get the latest on all these stories and more.

Special report: ‘Pre-determined science’

Three years to save the Earth? [This time]

Former UN top climate official Christiana Figueres just told the world we only have “three years” to save the planet … and all it will cost is $1.5 trillion per year.

Gee, guess we should hurry and jump on that deal … not.

Call us suspicious, but this is the same Figueres who infamously in 2015 announced the UN’s intention to replace free-market capitalism with bureaucratic control saying:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

That Figueres would now make such a doomsday prediction and then ask for such large sums of money, especially in light of her ambitious stated goal to control and direct the economic path of the whole earth, should be enough to make anyone roll their eyes.

But not so with Fake News media. They eat this all up.

If they bothered to look, they’d see there’s a long history of these so-called climate “tipping points” made by alarmists – all of which harmlessly passed without incident.

For those of us old enough to remember, the UN announced a 10-year tipping point way back in 1982, and then did so again in 1989. In both cases, these dates passed without any of the predicted doom-and-gloom taking place.

In 2006 Al Gore told us in An Inconvenient Truth the Arctic would be ice-free by 2014. He gave the planet only 10 years to escape before what, as Jim Morrison of TheDoorsmight say, would be “The End.”

Not surprisingly, as CFACT’s undercover film review operative found out at the Sundance Film festival earlier this year, Al doesn’t like it much if you ask him today how we survived.

Of course there’s more.

In 2008, ABC’s Bob Woodruff hosted a program where scientists told us that agriculture would collapse by “2015,” that a carton of milk would be $12.99, a gallon of gas $9 and large portions of NYC would be underwater.

And in 2009, Prince Charles declared we only had 96 months to save the Earth.  That same year NASA’s James Hansen said we only had until the end of President Obama’s first term, though U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said we only had 50 days until the global warming apocalypse took place.

It goes on and on.

You’d think the embarrassment of potentially being labeled “false prophets” would make them, well, shut up. But no, the soothsaying doesn’t stop. It just gets more insane.

Marc Morano does a great job of keeping track of all the climate tipping points that came and went at CFACT’s Climate Depot.

Our advice: If warming campaigners want to keep doing this Nostradamus gig, perhaps they should at least wait until they get one of their prophecies right before demanding a $1.5 trillion ransom.

RELATED ARTICLE: Don’t Believe the Hysteria Over Carbon Dioxide

EDITORS NOTE: Read the facts at CFACT.org

Gore’s sequel comes in dismal 15th at box office – Gore fans allege film ‘sabotaged’ by Paramount

Climate activists in shock at Gore sequel bombing at box office: ‘This was not supposed to happen’

‘Al Gore Gets Ripped Off Again’

‘He should have demanded a recount.’

Gore fans reduced to blaming the distributor.  ‘A botched strategy by Paramount Pictures effectively sabotaged the nationwide release’ of Gore’s sequel.

Gore had urged followers to ‘fill theaters’ to send message to ‘Trump and the other climate deniers’

Former Vice President Al Gore’s new film, An Inconvenient Sequel, came in a dismal 15th this weekend at U.S. theaters, according to Box Office Mojo.

Gore’s defenders have been quick to blame Paramount Pictures for the dismal performance of Gore’s sequel. “Al Gore Gets Ripped Off Again,” screamed the headline of D.R. Tucker in Washington Monthly.View post

“This was not supposed to happen,” Tucker wrote, adding, “he should have demanded a recount.”

“Sadly, the box-office under-performance of An Inconvenient Sequel will be seized upon by climate-change deniers as ‘proof’ that Americans don’t really care about this issue,” Tucker wrote.

According to Deadline Hollywood, Gore’s sequel “grossed $900K, averaging $5,000 (per screen). That brought its cume (cumulative) over seven figures, landing at $1,052,000. Its weekend gross placed it 15th in the overall box office as of Sunday morning. Paramount said it will expand the title to over 500 locations next weekend.

The box office performance will disappoint Gore, who had urged his followers to pack movie theaters to send a message to “Trump and the other climate deniers.” 

“By filling theaters, we can show Donald Trump and the other climate deniers in the White House that the American people are committed to climate action –– no matter what they do, say, or tweet!” Gore wrote in an email alert sent to his supporters on Friday August 4th, the day of his nationwide opening.

Many of the political left no longer want to see Gore as the face of the global warming movement. See: Warmist New Republic: ‘The Troubling Return of Al Gore’ – ‘Not everyone on the left is celebrating Gore’s reemergence’

Gore’s climate claims are failing to materialize as many of his assertions are exactly the opposite of the current climate data. See: Extreme Weather Expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘World is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters & Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims

A prominent Ivy League Geologist who voted for Gore, was “appalled” after viewing his first 2006 film. “I voted for Gore in 2000, yeah. I think that if he ran again, depending on who he ran against, I might vote for him. He’s a smart man,” said Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, who chaired the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania in the skeptical film “Climate Hustle.” 

But after viewing Gore’s film, Giegengack had this reaction. “I was appalled. I was appalled because he either deliberately misrepresented the point he was making or didn’t understand it. So it was irresponsible of Al Gore.”

“CO2 is not the villain that it has been portrayed. I’m impressed by the fact that the present climate, from the perspective of a geologist, is very close to the coldest it’s ever been. The concentration CO2 in the atmosphere today is the close to the lowest it has ever been,” Giegengack explained in “Climate Hustle”.

A key claim in Gore’s sequel about his role in securing the UN Paris climate pact has also been called into question. See:

Sequel depicts Gore clinching 2015 UN Paris deal – But top Indian diplomat says Gore’s claim is nonsense

Gore’s Sequel ‘Sabotaged’!

Gore fans like Tucker are now reduced to blaming the distributor for the sequels disappointing box office.

“A botched strategy by Paramount Pictures effectively sabotaged the nationwide release of the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, which finished in 15th place in US theatres this weekend. This was not supposed to happen,” Tucker explained.

Box Office Mojo Weekend Box Office for Aug. 4-6

Many climate activists and Gore apostles were hoping for a re-run of the success of Gore’s 2006 original film or of a Michael Moore style boom at the box office.

Tucker wrote: “Considering the fact that this is arguably the first major anti-Trump documentary to hit theatres–and considering the public outrage over Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement–Paramount should have stuck to its original plan; in fact, Paramount could have seized upon anti-Trump sentiment by giving An Inconvenient Sequel the same high-profile national rollout that Lionsgate gave [Michael Moore’s] Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, a rollout that resulted in that iconic film opening at #1 at the US box office, a rarity for a documentary.”

“It’s a shame that Paramount dropped the ball, giving the film a ‘national’ release in so few theatres that most Americans must wait until the film is available on demand or on DVD in order to see it,” Tucker explained.

Related Links: 

Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims

Face to Face: Morano confronts Gore with ‘Climate Hustle’ DVD in Australia! Gore refuses to accept, departs in SUV (Video here)

Extreme Weather Expert: ‘World is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters’

Sequel Review: ‘Al Gore’s Environmental Messiah Complex’ – Film accused of ‘excessive adulation’ of Gore

MEDIA IGNORE GORE’S ‘INCONVENIENT’ ELECTRICITY BILL

Editorial: ‘Energy hog’ Gore fails ‘to practice what he preaches’ – ‘Be skeptical of really rich guys preaching apocalypse & salvation’

Gore Sequel review: ‘Don’t expect the world to chuck medals at this follow-up’ – ‘More a Tragedy Than an Inconvenience’

Report: Al Gore’s Home Energy Use ‘Surges up to 34 Times the National Average’ – Report: ‘Gore guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years’

Mainstream Media’s ‘silence of the climate scams’ – The Australian newspaper Features Climate Hustle

Warmist Review: Gore’s sequel an ‘aimless travelogue of meet-&-greets & brand building, lacking urgency of 2006 film’ – Westwood review: Gore’s sequel ‘a somewhat aimless travelogue of meet-and-greets and brand building, lacking the urgency of the 2006 film’

Warmist Review: Gore’s sequel ‘not a great movie…unfocused…’bent the truth’ on India…’light on the facts’Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Gore still trying to scare you into saving the world’ – ‘Sequel Misses a Few Inconvenient Facts’

Wash Times Features Climate Depot on ‘Inconvenient’ Sequel: ‘Gore is the gift that keeps on giving’

Watch: Prominent Ivy League Geologist who voted for Gore ‘appalled’ after viewing his film

Climate Hustle