Trump right, UN wrong – Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’

Climate Depot’s 43 Page Report Presented To UN Climate Summit in Marraketch, Morocco – Trump is correct to be skeptical of ‘climate change’ claims

‘All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!’

University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added.Very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus.”

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’

Meanwhile, climate skeptics descend on UN climate summit in Morocco: Skeptics in Morocco on Trump: ‘Expect both international & domestic climate agenda to be reversed. It’s about time!’

By:  – Climate Depot – November 15, 2016 9:56 AM

Full 43 Page PDF Report:

Presented to the UN Climate Summit in Marraketch, Morocco – November 2016
Key climate data highlights:

  • 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
  • The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
  • Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
  • Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.
  • Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
  • Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.
  • So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.
  • A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’
  • In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade.
  • Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.


CO2 is not the tail that wags the dog. CO2 is a trace essential gas, but without it life on earth would be impossible. Carbon dioxide fertilizes algae, trees, and crops to provide food for humans and animals. We inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. Slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels cannot possibly supplant the numerous complex and inter-connected forces that have always determined Earth’s climate. As University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has noted: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Even the global warming activists at acknowledged this in a September 20, 2008 article, stating, “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors.”

The UN Paris climate change agreement claims to able to essentially save the planet from ‘global warming’. But even if you accept the UN’s and Al Gore’s version of climate change claims, the UN Paris agreement would not ‘save’ the planet.

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!

The United Nations has publicly stated its goal is not to ‘solve’ climate change, but to seek to redistribute wealth and expand its authority through more central planning. UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard revealed: Global Warming Policy Is Right Even If Science Is Wrong. Hedegaard said in 2013, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

The UN is seeking central planning. UN climate chief Christiana Figueres declared in 2012 that she is seeking a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.” She added: “This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.”

The UN and EPA regulations are pure climate symbolism in exchange for a more centrally planned energy economy. The UN and EPA regulations are simply a vehicle to put politicians and bureaucrats in charge of our energy economy and ‘save’ us from bad weather and ‘climate change.’

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer in 2016: “Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. This means that in order for politicians to advance policy goals (such as forcing expensive solar energy on the masses or creating a carbon tax), they have to turn normal weather disasters into “evidence” of climate change.”

While the climate fails to behave like the UN and climate activists predict, very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called “consensus.”

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’ – An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.” Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn’t face an existential crisis. ‘What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger.’

Image result for ivar giaever

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’ – Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ – ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’

‘Global warming really has become a new religion.’ – “I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in 2015…I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.’

Lovelock in 1991 with the book that made his name

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’ – Lovelock rips scientists attempting to predict temperatures as ‘idiots’: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” – Lovelock Featured in Climate Hustle – Watch Lovelock transform from climate fear promoter to climate doubter!

While these scientists take another look at the climate data, efforts to transform economies away from fossil fuels underway but even proponents admit they are purely symbolic.

EPA Chief Admits Obama Regs Have No Measurable Climate Impact: ‘One one-hundredth of a degree?’ EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as ‘enormously beneficial’ – Symbolic impact

Former Obama Energy Chief slams EPA climate regs: ‘Falsely sold as impactful’ – ‘All U.S. annual emissions will be offset by 3 weeks of Chinese emissions’ Former Obama Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell: ‘The Clean Power Plan has been falsely sold as impactful environmental regulation when it is really an attempt by our primary federal environmental regulator to take over state and federal regulation of energy.’ – ‘What is also clear, scientifically and technically, is that EPA’s plan will not significantly impact global emissions.’ – ‘All of the U.S. annual emissions in 2025 will be offset by three weeks of Chinese emissions. Three weeks.’

And energy use has not really changed all that much in over 100 years.

Reality check: In 1908, fossil fuels accounted for 85% of U.S. energy consumption. In 2015, more or less the same

Click here for Full Report ‘2016 State of the Climate Report’


Table of Contents:

Global Temperature:
Sea Level:
Polar Bears:
Extreme Weather:
Heavy Rains;
Climate Predictions:
Global warming causes war?
Predict Both Outcomes & They Can Be Always Correct!
Tipping Points/Last Chance
What Exxon Knew
97% Consensus?

Click here for Full Report ‘2016 State of the Climate Report’


Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice!

Climate Depot’s statement on President Elect Donald J. Trump: 

“Climate sanity has been restored to the U.S. No longer do we have to hear otherwise intelligent people in charge in DC blather on about how UN treaties or EPA regulations will control the Earth’s temperature or storminess.

The election of Trump tonight was one of pure enjoyment for those concerned about silly, sovereignty threatening and purely symbolic climate policies that have been imposed on the U.S. without a single vote. Skeptics also enjoyed watching the grieving faces of the mainstream media on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, as the Trump election night shock sunk in.

“What they (the Democrats & warmists) are so afraid of is this: Trump is the first Republican Presidential nominee that has ever staked out a strongly science supported skeptical position not only on climate science claims, but also on the so-called ‘solutions’. (See: CLIMATE TRUTH FILE: 2016: Skeptical Talking Points from A-Z on Global Warming – Point-By-Point)

Trump is right on climate science and Trump rightly scares the hell out of the warmists.

Climate skeptics are ready to get down to the serious business of working with a Trump Administration to begin overhauling the U.S. climate and energy policy and battling the climate activists and their ill-gotten agenda achieved through bypassing democracy.

The time for a Clexit has arrived, a U.S. exit from the UN Paris climate agreement.

Trump can now move forward with his scientifically sound and coherent climate and energy policy that he laid out during the campaign.

Skeptics look forward to the following Trump climate agenda:

Donald Trump said on May 26, 2016

1) Trump pledges to rip up Paris climate agreement in energy speech

2) Trump railed against “draconian climate rules”

3) Trump said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement –

4) and withdraw any funding for United Nations programs related to global warming.

End Morano statement

Background Info on Trump’s plans:

Breitbart’s James Delingpole analysis:

“To get an idea of the horrors to come for the greenies, look at how they reacted to the prospect of his new Environmental Protection Agency Dismantler-in-Chief Myron Ebell. Ebell is an old friend of mine who works on climate and energy issues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The fact that he’s an old friend of mine probably tells you all you need to know about where he stands on global warming.

Here’s how Newsweek views him:

Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief, and he revels in it, crowing in his biography that he’s been called one of the leading “misleaders” on climate change and “villain of the month” by one environmental group. David Goldston, a policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, says Ebell “doesn’t believe in climate change and wants to reverse the advances we’ve had in environmental protection and decimate—if not utterly destroy—the Environmental Protection Agency.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ebell’s employer, “has done everything it can politically and through litigation to block any forward movement on climate and to try to harass anybody who is trying to get forward movement,” Goldston says.
Ebell is also the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, more than two dozen nonprofit groups “that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies,” according to the coalition’s website. Those positions line up nicely with Trump’s goals, which include “saving” the coal industry, reviving the Keystone XL oil pipeline and expanding offshore oil drilling.
Ebell has attacked nearly every aspect of Obama’s environmental policies and accomplishments. He has said that the president’s decision in September to sign the Paris climate accord—which commits nations to sharp reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change—was “clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority” because treaties need approval by two-thirds of the Senate. (The White House argued that it was an agreement, not a treaty.) In a speech in August at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump said he would cancel the agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. climate change programs.

Yup, greenies. That climate change gravy train you’ve been riding these last four decades looks like it’s headed for a major, Atlas-Shrugged-style tunnel incident…

Wash Times features Morano: The ‘time has come for a U.S. led ‘Clexit’ from UN the climate treaty’ – Marc Morano, who runs the skeptics’ website Climate Depot, said Tuesday that the cold feet on global warming shows that some countries are realizing the international climate agreement is “not in their best interests.” “More and more nations are realizing that the U.N. climate treaty is nothing more than an effort to empower the U.N. and attack national sovereignty while doing absolutely nothing for the climate,” said Mr. Morano, who debuted his film “Climate Hustle” during the negotiations in Paris. He said that the “time has come for a U.S. led ‘Clexit’ from UN the climate treaty.”

Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Trump echoes Climate Depot’s call to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!

Flashback January 2016 – Marc Morano wrote: “The GOP nominee for president in 2016 must present a basic plan to roll back Obama’s climate regulations. Here is a simple breakdown of what is needed:

Morano wrote in Jan. 2016: 1) Repeal all EPA climate regulations; 2) Withdraw the U.S. from any Paris agreement (nonbinding) ‘commitments’; 3) Withdraw the U.S. from the UN climate treaty process entirely; 4) The U.S. should defund the UN IPCC climate panel;

Donald Trump said on May 26, 2016: 1) Trump pledges to rip up Paris climate agreement in energy speech – 2) Trump railed against “draconian climate rules” – 3) and said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement -4) and withdraw any funding for United Nations programs related to global warming.

Via MSNBC – May 26, 2016:

Trump railed against the “totalitarian tactics” of the Environmental Protection Agency. He pledged to dismantle the EPA entirely in an April town hall, although he referred to it at the time as the “Department of Environmental” and “DEP.” He assailed Hillary Clinton for saying in March that fracking projects would be unlikely to pass muster under her environmental regime.

“Hillary’s agenda is job destruction. My agenda is job creation,” Trump said.

He railed against “draconian climate rules” and said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and withdraw any funding for United Nations programs related to global warming. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” in the past…”

Flashback January 14, 2016 – Climate Depot’s Marc Morano on dismantling UN/EPA climate agenda:

Morano: “President Obama laid out his final vision in the State of the Union address. Republicans need to get their act together quickly in order to prevent Obama’s climate legacy from being cemented.

Morano: “The GOP nominee for president in 2016 must present a basic plan to roll back Obama’s climate regulations. Here is a simple breakdown of what is needed:

1) Repeal all EPA climate regulations;

2) Withdraw the U.S. from any Paris agreement (nonbinding) ‘commitments’;

3) Withdraw the U.S. from the UN climate treaty process entirely;

4) The U.S. should defund the UN IPCC climate panel;

‘Yes! We Should Defund The UN IPCC': ‘It seems along with 17 years of flat global temps there is some evidence that we are witnessing some cooling on global warming hype & hysteria in DC as well’

5) Start praising carbon based energy as one of the greatest liberators of mankind and the best hope for the developing world’s poor.

Anything short of this clear and comprehensive approach will lead to failure and guarantee Obama’s climate policies will become permanent in the U.S. The Republicans need to get a coherent plan and articulate their course of action.

End Morano excerpt. 

Cheers! WaPo Editorial Board: ‘A President Trump could wreck progress on global warming’


Will EPA Hold Itself to a ‘Higher Standard’ Over Gold King Mine Spill?


After causing three million gallons of toxic waste to spill into a Colorado river, we’re still waiting for EPA to hold itself to a “higher standard.”

In August 2015, EPA workers caused mine waste to burst from Colorado’s Gold King Mine into the Animus River, turning it a sickly yellow and polluting water supplies in three states.

After EPA’s Office of Inspector General sent the Justice Department what it thought was evidence of criminal wrongdoing, federal prosecutors chose not to prosecute, leaving any possible punishments against government employees to EPA, the Denver Post reports:

The U.S. Attorney in Denver will not prosecute an Environmental Protection Agency employee involved in the Gold King Mine disaster, leaving it to the agency to determine administrative action against the employee.

A decision made Oct. 6 was based on information submitted by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General to federal prosecutors after a year-long internal probe.

Instead of a criminal prosecution, the EPA’s internal investigators “will submit a report of an investigation to the agency that details the findings of our investigation,” OIG spokesman Jeff Lagda said in response to queries.

“The agency, not the OIG, will then determine what administrative action they may take against the employee based on that report,” Lagda said. “The EPA will have to report to the OIG what administrative action the EPA will undertake.”

Soon after the spill last year, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy vowed, “We are holding ourselves to a higher standard than we would hold other responsible parties.” But earlier this year, McCarthy talked down the damage done by her agency. State officials were not pleased.

There have been plenty of investigations. None made EPA look good.

An EPA internal investigation found that the spill was “likely inevitable” because workers onsite didn’t take water pressure readings from inside the abandoned mine.

Why? Because EPA felt it “would have been quite costly and require much more planning and multiple field seasons to accomplish.”

Internal EPA investigators also noted that the agency didn’t plan for the possibility of a spill that could threaten a river popular with tourists and a necessity for farmers and local residents.

The Interior Department’s investigation was just as tough. It chastised EPA for having “little appreciation for the engineering complexity” and for having “a general absence of knowledge of the risks associated with these [abandoned mining] facilities.”

Then there was the OIG investigation that referred its findings to federal prosecutors. The Hill reports, “OIG found that the unnamed employee may have broken federal water pollution law and may have made false statements to law enforcement officials regarding the Gold King Mine spill.”

What if a private party and not EPA were responsible? EPA would throw the book at them, as they do all the time:

  • Earlier this year, America’s oldest brewery, Yuengling, agreed to a $2.8 million settlement and $7 million in improvement costs over Clean Water Act violations.
  • To protect his land from being washed away from future flooding, an Oregon farmer faces $100 million in fines for building a retaining wall near a river without an EPA permit after consulting with the Army Corps of Engineers.

And anyone lying to the agency would be in serious trouble.

It should be noted that EPA has paid out more than $5 million to state and local governments to reimburse them for emergency response expenses. But is that the “higher standard” Administrator McCarthy promised?

Anyone public or private should be held accountable for violating federal rules and environmental damage they cause.

EPA “will not hesitate” to vigorously hold private parties accountable for breaking environmental laws, but will it do the same to itself? It’s been over a year since the spill, and we’re still waiting.

This is something to think about if EPA’s Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule survives its court challenge (hopefully not), and the agency is allowed to enlarge its authority over land use by claiming jurisdiction over waters, including ditches, canals, ponds, and wetlands, as far as 4,000 feet from a navigable water.


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of the Animas River. Photo credit: Riverhugger. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.


Make Babies, and Don’t Let the Greens Guilt Trip You about It by Steven Horowitz

Several years back, the economist Bryan Caplan wrote a wonderful book called Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. Caplan argued that most parents underestimated the benefits of larger families and were engaging in costly parenting strategies that yielded few real benefits. Thus, he said, if you love kids, you should have lots of them.

From NPR this week comes a story that might well be called “anti-Caplan” in every dimension. It is a profile of bioethicist Travis Rieder and others like him who argue that it is immoral to have many children, if any at all, because of the burden that additional children place on the Earth’s ecosystem. Given that we are already, Rieder claims, on the road to climate disaster, adding more children will both make matters worse and condemn those children to a horrible life on a worsening planet. His argument might well be called “Altruistic Reasons to Have Fewer Kids.”

More specifically, he argues that children are what economists call negative externalities: “We as parents, we as family members, we get the good. And the world, the community, pays the cost.” As it turns out, that claim is almost entirely wrong. It is parents who pay most of the costs of having children and the rest of us who reap the benefits.

I am not going to contest some of the claims about climate change Rieder and others in the article invoke. He does tend to take the most extreme predictions of climate models as gospel truth when the recent data have suggested that reality is closer to the much more modest predictions. However, even if the worst case scenarios are true, Rieder misses a number of important points about population growth that need to be considered.

Human Beings are Producers

He, like so many environmentalists, sees human beings only as consumers of resources. So one core statistic he trots out is that the amount of CO2 saved by not having a child is roughly 20 times what we can save through traditional things like driving hybrids and recycling. Therefore, he and the other people discussed in the story conclude, if we really want to “save the planet,” we should have fewer, if any, children.

But this is single-entry economic and moral bookkeeping. This view ignores the idea that humans are also producers. As Julian Simon reminded us so often, more people not only means more hands to work and more minds to create, it means more different people with different ideas. Increases in population not only deepen the division of labor and productivity by their sheer numbers, they also take advantage of the fact that each of us is unique which leads to new ideas and innovation.

Human progress depends upon the increasing productivity that comes from a finer division of labor and new ways of doing things. And those are the result of more people.

It’s not, as a student in the article suggests, that one of those kids that isn’t born might have come up with a “solution for climate change,” but that each and every one of those kids that isn’t born would have contributed to greater economic growth, which is nothing more than the more effective and efficient use of the resources we have.

Such growth is what has made it possible for the Earth to sustain 7 billion lives of increasing length, comfort, and quality. Reducing the population might mean we use up more resources by losing the efficiencies that come from a larger population’s greater ability to innovate and productively specialize.

The benefits of having more kids are not primarily to the parents involved, though as Caplan points out there are many. More people means we are better able to beat back omnipresent scarcity and carve out a more inhabitable planet for more people who live longer, better lives.

This is the most fundamental error of so many environmentalists, especially those arguing for reductions in the population: they see humans only as consumers of resources and not the source of the very innovations that enable us to use resources more effectively and the riches that enable us to have a cleaner, healthier planet.

Demographic Transition

The other crucial point Rieder and people like him miss is that the Earth’s population is already in the process of stabilizing. One of the most agreed upon empirical facts of history is the so-called “demographic transition.” As societies become wealthier and more industrialized, the incentives facing parents change and family size falls. Once mom and dad, or perhaps only one of them, can earn enough income to support a family, and there’s no farm or cottage industry that requires the whole family pitching in, the need for many children is much less and parents seek to control their fertility.

The Western world began to go through this transition over a century ago, and the rest of the world has followed in turn. Most of the Western world is dealing with fertility rates that are below replacement, and rates of population growth in all but a handful of countries worldwide have fallen in the last few decades.

Thankfully Rieder does not want to use Chinese-style coercion to limit family size, but he’s not afraid to tax larger families more heavily. Even that isn’t necessary given the reality of the demographic transition:  in a free society, human beings naturally limit their fertility as they get wealthier. Again, the best way to save the planet is not to have fewer kids, but to have as many as you can afford and let their productivity enable us to use resources with more efficiency and create more progress.

Anti-Life, Anti-Human

The radical wing of environmentalism is, as Ayn Rand said decades ago, “anti-life” and “anti-human” in its belief that humans are the scourge of the planet and not the source of its progress. After all, if the important thing is saving the planet by reducing our carbon footprint, why stop by persuading people to not have kids?

Why not persuade currently living people, especially young ones, to reduce their lifetime carbon footprint by killing themselves? The logic is no different.

That they don’t make that argument suggests that “saving the planet” really isn’t the overriding issue here. Like so much else in the Green movement, this seems to be about protecting their own comfortable lives against what they think will happen when everyone else is able to live lives like they have. They got their progress and health and children, but everyone else needs to sacrifice for the sake of the planet. That Rieder does have a child is some evidence of this point.

Not only is Rieder’s argument deeply immoral and reactionary in how wrong it is, it turns out to be far less altruistic than it first seems. Nothing could capture the total failure of radical environmentalist anti-natalism better than calling it “selfish reasons everyone else should have fewer kids.” Let’s hope, for the sake of both actual humans and the planet we live on that these environmentalist arguments are as infertile as their proponents wish humans were.

Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions.

He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

save the planet woman no child

NPR: ‘We should protect our kids from global warming — by not having kids!’

‘U.S. environmentalists are taking a page from China’s mandatory one-child policy even as China abandons the policy. If these wacky climate activists believed their own literature they would realize that ‘global warming’ may lead to less kids! (See: Climate Change Kills the Mood: Economists Warn of Less Sex on a Warmer Planet) The warmists have now graduated from regulating our light bulbs, coal plants and SUVs to regulating our family size. Let’s keep ‘global warming’ out of the bedroom! Let’s give families the freedom to choose how many kids they want!’

NPR article: ‘The climate crisis is a reproductive crisis’ – Solution? ‘A carbon tax — on kids’ – Philosopher claims ‘Climate Change” is “affecting the morality of procreation.’

‘Scientists warn that a catastrophic tipping point is possible in the next few decades’ (Climate Depot note: Really? Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!)

“Philosopher Travis Rieder asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be. “Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,” he says. “Very, very soon.”

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” Rieder says.

“I’m not ready to have children because I don’t know what the climate’s gonna be like in 50 years’

Bringing down global fertility by just half a child per woman “could be the thing that saves us,” he says.

Rieder proposes that richer nations do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents. He says the penalty should be progressive, based on income, and could increase with each additional child. Think of it like a carbon tax, on kids.

Sierra Club: ‘Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license’

Full article:

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change- - NPR.clipular

August 18, 201611:09 AM ET

Heard on All Things Considered

By  – Jennifer Ludden is a correspondent on NPR’s National Desk

Full NPR program:

Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder (a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University) tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.

He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.”

Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe.

For years, people have lamented how bad things might get “for our grandchildren,” but Rieder tells the students that future isn’t so far off anymore.

He asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be.

“Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,” he says. “Very, very soon.”

Big Data Predicts Centuries Of Harm If Climate Warming Goes Unchecked

Rieder wears a tweedy jacket and tennis shoes, and he limps because of a motorcycle accident. He’s a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and his arguments against having children are moral.

Americans and other rich nations produce the most carbon emissions per capita, he says. Yet people in the world’s poorest nations are most likely to suffer severe climate impacts, “and that seems unfair,” he says.

There’s also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now.

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” Rieder says.

His arguments sound pretty persuasive in the classroom. At home, it was a different matter.

Toward a Small Family Ethic: How Overpopulation and Climate Change Are Affecting the Morality of ProcreationToward a Small Family Ethic - How Overpopulation and - Travis N. Rieder - Springer.clipular

When she imagines raising a child, Ferorelli says she can’t help but envision the nightmare scenarios that have dogged her since she first heard the term “global warming” in elementary school. “Knowing that I gave that future to somebody is something that just doesn’t sit very well,” she says.

Full NPR article here:

Daily Caller: Sierra Club: ‘Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license’ – By Andrew Follett – Daily Caller – Energy and Environmental Reporter – There are entire environmental groups dedicated to the view that humans should stop having kids due to global warming and environmental issues. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, for example, claims that “voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters” and believes that humanity should commit species suicide rather than continue damaging the environment…Mainstream green groups, such as The Sierra Club, also hold a more limited version of the view that the freedom to have kids should be restricted to save the planet. “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing” David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club, stated in an interview.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who advised both Pope Francis and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, claims that the maximum number of people Earth can support is a mere 1 billion people. As of 2016, there are more than 7.3 billion humans on Earth, making the question of which 6.3 billion people are supposed to die a fairly important one.

Dire predictions of greens have consistently failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The quality of life of the average person has also immeasurably improved.

Climate-change activists call for tax policies to discourage childbirth

NPR Lectures About Selfish Moms Having Kids in ‘Age of Climate Change’

Skeptics Mock: ‘Having less babies might cool the world. There are no kids in Antarctica, and there’s no warming there either. How many non-babies does it take to stop a flood in Bangladesh? Perhaps the IPCC has an App for that.’

Related Links: 

Warmist Mike Hulme: Since 1979, China’s ‘one-child’ policy’ has ‘avoided’ 300 million births — Reducing ‘about 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 from being emitted annually to global atmosphere’ – Warmist David Appell mocks Overpopulation/climate fears: ‘On the other hand, maybe one of those 300 Million people would have invented a technique for massive noncarbon energy production’

pot factory

Marijuana factories will have a tremendous impact on Florida’s environment

Florida’s current low-THC medical marijuana law allows for the establishment of six marijuana cultivation sites that will grow and distribute marijuana to licensed retailers.

Amendment 2 would allow for an unlimited amount of cultivation centers that could be large indoor or outdoor grows.

Energy Consumption: Increasing Florida’s Carbon Footprint: Many commercialized marijuana growers prefer indoor-cultivation because it is easier to control all aspects of the environment and it allows for perpetual harvests. Indoor cultivation uses large amounts of energy from lighting and air conditioning, an amount estimated at 8 times more than a typical commercial building and 4 times more than a hospital per-square foot. In Colorado, Denver’s electricity rate is increasing at a rate of 1.2% per year and 45% of the increase comes from medical marijuana growing facilities that used 86 million kWh in 2012 and 121 million in 2013.

Water Consumption: It is estimated that each marijuana plant consumes 6 gallons of water a day. In 2013, Fish and Wildlife officials in California (where medical marijuana is legal) investigated 264 marijuana grows and removed 129 illegal dams used to irrigate. Outdoor marijuana grows can have a major impact on watersheds as the use of water resources within a watershed ultimately affects all downstream inhabitants, even those that reside in adjacent downstream watersheds. The diversion of water from watersheds in California is having a significant impact on residents, especially in drought season. Salmon Creek watershed, a 36.9 square mile area in Humboldt County, CA, estimated water use by outdoor and greenhouse marijuana grows equals 124,185 gallons per day compared to 31,680 gallons used per day by the area’s residents.

Florida has 29 major watersheds. The lowering of the water table can lead to houses or roads falling into sinkholes. Devastating results from attempts to alter the functioning of Florida’s watersheds, specifically the Everglades, has spurred current initiatives to restore this unique ecosystem. Amendment 2 would result in dramatic alterations to our watersheds and potentially cause irreparable damage to Florida’s ecosystem.

fl-no-pot-logoOpponents of Amendment 2 are urging all Floridians to consider the environmental consequences of legalizing marijuana. They warn that Florida needs to protect the Sunshine state’s natural resources.


DEA rebuffs petition, keeps marijuana on schedule of most dangerous drugs

Even ‘Medical’ Marijuana Has Dangers

EDITORS NOTE:  To learn more on the harms of marijuana and the potential impacts of Amendment 2, please visit Don’t Let Florida Go To Pot

climate change

Test Your Climate Knowledge with Five Easy Questions

Climate Change Dispatch has a five question test to see if you understand climate change. Here it is. Take it and see how you do.

If your friends can’t understand why you don’t believe in man-made global warming, give them this simple, five-question quiz. They may realize they don’t know as much about global warming as they think.

1. The primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is:

[a] Nitrous Oxide

[b] Carbon Dioxide

[c] Methane

[d] Water Vapor

2. Carbon dioxide comprises what percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere?

[a] 400%

[b] 40%

[c] 4%

[d] 0.04%

3. When reviewing our planet’s long geologic history, the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is:

[a] Among the highest levels ever recorded

[b] Among the lowest levels ever recorded

[c] About average

4. Each new molecule of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere traps:

[a] The same amount of heat as the previous additional molecule

[b] More heat than the previous molecule

[c] Less heat than the previous molecule

5. In the twentieth century, solar output was:

[a] The same as it’s always been

[b] The lowest in 1,000 years.

[c] The highest in 1,000 years.


1. [d] Water vapor. Roughly 80% of the Earth’s “greenhouse effect” is sustained by water vapor.

2. [d] 0.04%. Carbon dioxide is a minor constituent in the atmosphere, which is dominated by Nitrogen (78%) and Oxygen (21%).

3. [b] Carbon dioxide levels are currently among the lowest ever recorded in Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history.

4. [c] Less heat. Carbon dioxide follows a logarithmically declining function. That means, it exponentially loses the ability to trap heat as its concentration increases.

5. [c] The highest in 1,000 years. Starting in the latter part of the 1800s, solar activity ramped back up to the peak output previously seen during the Roman Warm Period (250-400 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD).

EDITORS NOTE: If you get more than two answers wrong, you may begin reading Climate Change Dispatch regularly for a crash course in climatology.

election 2016 button

Americans Say 2016 Election ‘More Important Than Any Other In Recent History’

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire/ — Weary of political gridlock in Washington, but determined to find solutions to the nation’s most pressing issues, Americans hope a collaboration between entities closer to home – state and local governments, businesses, nonprofits or individuals – will move the country forward, according to a new Heartland Monitor Poll released today by The Allstate Corporation (NYSE: ALL) and Atlantic Media.

As the 2016 general election campaign kicks off, the 26th Allstate-Atlantic Media Heartland Monitor Poll gauges Americans’ opinions on current trends shaping the country, including our most important issues, our greatest opportunities and challenges and where we look for solutions. The results reveal an engaged citizenry that believes key national issues such as political gridlock, education and national security make this election more important than past contests (63 percent).

A growing disillusionment with the federal government’s effectiveness, however, means people aren’t waiting for D.C. to address their everyday issues.

“We’ve been asking Americans for eight years which issues are most important to them, and we heard loud and clear in Heartland 26 they believe it’ll take non-traditional partnerships at the local level to move the country forward,” said Bill Vainisi, senior vice president and deputy general counsel, Law and Regulation, Allstate. “While people continue to look to the federal government for large-scale change, we realize that takes time. As a network of small businesses in nearly every community in America, Allstate knows how critical local innovators are to improving lives from the ground up.”

Americans believe partisan politics are impeding progress when it comes to the nation’s most concerning problems, though there is an overall belief in the resiliency of the American people.

  • Nearly all Americans (92 percent) say the political system in Washington isn’t working well enough to produce solutions to the country’s problems.
  • The gridlock in Washington is a problem felt by everyone, regardless of party lines: Eighty percent of both Republicans and Independents, as well as 63 percent of Democrats, say it’s a serious problem.
  • Almost half of Americans (47 percent) are looking beyond the federal government, saying it will take a new, innovative partnership between some combination of businesses, local governments, non-profits and individuals to move the country forward.

While Americans are frustrated by inaction in Washington and remain uncertain about the country’s economic future, they feel more optimistic toward their personal financial situations.

  • Most Americans think their current personal financial situation is good (39 percent) or fair (35 percent). One-in-10 (9 percent) say they have an excellent personal financial situation, while 14 percent label their financial situation as poor.
  • More Americans believe their personal financial situation will improve (39 percent) than become worse (9 percent) over the next year. Nearly half believe their finances will stay the same (46 percent).
  • Twenty-two percent expect the national economy to improve over the next year, while 25 percent think it will worsen over that same period. Thirty-eight percent expect it to stay the same.
  • Americans are enthusiastic about some trends they’re seeing:
    • Americans are saving more money than they did before the economic crash of 2008 (37 percent mostly positive impact on the country); and
    • Americans are becoming increasingly self-employed, including working in flexible positions through the sharing economy (34 percent mostly positive impact on the country).

The political division on the national level is driving engagement among Americans, many of whom perceive the upcoming election as more important and potentially more impactful than past elections.

  • Nine-in-10 Americans (90 percent) believe this election will affect America’s standing in the world. Only 4 percent believe it will not have much impact, and 3 percent think it will have no impact at all.
  • Among registered voters and those planning to register before the general election, three-quarters (75 percent) say they will definitely cast a ballot in November. Another 9 percent say they will probably vote, and 7 percent say there’s a 50/50 chance they will make it to the polls.
    • Six-in-10 registered voters who did not vote or participate in their state’s primary or caucus (62 percent) say they will definitely make it to the polls in November. More than a quarter are considering casting a ballot (16 percent probably vote and 11 percent 50/50 chance of voting).
    • More than eight-in-10 registered voters who did vote or participate in their state’s primary or caucus (84 percent) say they will definitely make it to the polls in November.
  • Despite their beliefs about the importance of the election, Americans largely feel only incremental change, if any, will occur if their preferred candidate is elected: Forty percent foresee minor progress and 19 percent predict no change.
  • The prospect of the election’s impact on personal quality of life is expected to be much less than the impact made on the world.  Four-in-10 (41 percent) say it will have a great deal of impact on their personal life, and another 29 percent say it will have a moderate impact. A quarter (25 percent) believe the election will have either little or no impact.
    • There is a stark age and gender divide when it comes to Americans’ perceptions of the impact of the upcoming election:
      • Women and Americans 50 years and older are more likely than their counterparts to say they will see a great deal of impact caused by this election.
      • Eighty-five percent of women 50 years and older say this election will have a great deal of impact on America’s standing in the world. Slightly less confident, 73 percent of the other gender and age combinations, (men 18-49, women 18-49, men 50+) believe the election will have a great impact.
      • Half of women 50 years and older (51 percent) say the election will have a great deal of impact on their personal quality of life. The other gender and age combinations are less likely to say it will have a great impact on their life (for example, 31 percent of men and 41 percent of women ages 18-49, as well as 44 percent of men ages 50+).

“These findings signal that after years of stalemate and partisan paralysis in Washington, most Americans’ first instinct now is to look for change instigated from the bottom up rather than the top down,” said Ronald Brownstein, Atlantic Media’s editorial director for strategic partnerships. “The political credo the poll suggests might be summarized as: argue nationally, act locally.”

To see in-depth poll data for the 26th Allstate/Atlantic Media Heartland Monitor Poll, please visit The Atlantic is reporting on the poll results and their implications in a series at, where the full topline findings are also available.

Survey Methodology
The 26th installment of the Allstate/Atlantic Media Heartland Monitor Poll, conducted June 19-24, 2016, comprises questions asked in the final months leading up to the 2016 presidential election: How do Americans view the current trends shaping the country? What are the biggest problems and who do we look towards to fix the issues? Will the 2016 Presidential election make a difference? The survey was conducted among a national sample of 1,000 American adults age 18+, with 500 reached via cell phone and 500 reached via landline. The margin of error for a sample of 1,000 is +/- 3.1 in 95 out of 100 cases.

About Allstate Corporation
The Allstate Corporation (NYSE: ALL) is the nation’s largest publicly held personal lines insurer, protecting approximately 16 million households from life’s uncertainties through auto, home, life and other insurance offered through its Allstate, Esurance, Encompass and Answer Financial brand names. Now celebrating its 85th anniversary as an insurer, Allstate is widely known through the slogan “You’re In Good Hands With Allstate®.” Allstate agencies are in virtually every local community in America. In 2015, The Allstate Foundation, Allstate, its employees and agency owners gave $36 million to support local communities.

About Atlantic Media
Atlantic Media is dedicated to equipping opinion leaders with breakthrough ideas and original insights. Its powerful brands, including The Atlantic, Government Executive, National JournalQuartz, and Defense Onereach leaders across all sectors—consumer, business, media, and government. Strategically designed to meet the unique needs of this community, Atlantic Media’s innovative portfolio of digital, print, event, social, and mobile platforms engages an influential audience of over 30 million worldwide each month.

About FTI Consulting
FTI Consulting, Inc. (NYSE: FCN) is a global business advisory firm dedicated to helping organizations protect and enhance enterprise value in an increasingly complex legal, regulatory and economic environment. With more than 4,600 employees located in 26 countries, FTI Consulting professionals work closely with clients to anticipate, illuminate and overcome complex business challenges in areas such as investigations, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory issues, reputation management, strategic communications and restructuring. The company generated $1.78 billion in revenues during fiscal year 2015. For more information, visit and connect with us on Twitter (@FTIConsulting), Facebook and LinkedIn.

dark winter with casey photo

Florida based Veritence Corporation’s Two Major Climate Predictions Come to Pass

John L. Casey, founder of Veritence Corporation and author of Dark Winter, on April 11, 2016 made two major climate predictions.

Prediction 1.  We can now add this new event and date to our memories – February 2016. This is the month when global temperatures began a final long term decline into a deep and potentially dangerous abyss of record cold that will last for thirty years. Read more.

Prediction 2. Like the past 200 years of relatively continuous growth in global temperatures, the 2015-2016 warm temperatures were caused by the Sun. Unfortunately, the last two decades of solar heating, which have simultaneously permitted bumper crops for the world’s hungry masses, is in my opinion, the last of its kind for at least the next 400 years. The warmth we have enjoyed and that of generations to come is over. Read more.

Casey notes,

As of today’s latest satellite global temperature data from Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, Huntsville that is exactly what has happened – March, April, May and now June have seen dramatic drops in global temperatures -exactly as I predicted. I expect the rest of the year to continue to show this prediction was correct. According to Dr. Spencer, the last two month drop is the steepest in 37 years! See “”

See Dr. Spencer’s chart below.

temperature chart


The mission of Veritence Corporation is to provide consulting advice and related services to the government, business community, and the general public in its areas of expertise. These areas include climate science, space programs and space policy, geophysics, and management advice in complex scientific and engineering projects.

To achieve the Veritence mission we will:

1. Become a vocal and visible public advocate for truth and integrity at all levels of government involving the mission areas.

2. Provide requisite consulting services to Veritence Corporation clients.

3. Make recommendations to the government and the public for establishment of important science and engineering goals.

speech codes

Democrats want to add suppression of free speech to their national platform

Horrifyingly, the Democratic National Committee unanimously voted to make the suppression of free speech, in the form of prosecuting companies and pro-fossil-fuel organizations, part of their official platform proposal.

Many detractors of Donald Trump have (rightly) worried about his comments indicating the possibility of violating the First Amendment. But now the Democrats want to make it official policy to violate the First Amendment rights of fossil fuel companies and advocates.

I’m not going to let them get away with pretending that this is a matter of justice and prosecuting fraud. I’m going to go to the Democratic National Convention from July 25-28 to challenge the very people who want to invade my privacy and, by the logic of their position, throw me in jail.

If you’re potentially interested in joining me there, let me know. Also, if you have any political or media contacts who might help bring more attention to this cause, let me know as well.

Here is a new 10-minute speech I gave last week defending fossil fuels and free speech. I’ve been told that it’s very powerful. If you agree, please share with your personal network and with any prominent commentators you follow.

Note: since I describe my incident with the Mass. Attorney General in vivid detail, the video does contain some adult language. If that’s a problem, please enjoy the interviews mentioned below, which are all PG rated.

earthquakes usa

Federal and State Leaders Warned to Prepare for Catastrophic Earthquakes and Volcanoes

ORLANDO, Florida — The International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center (IEVPC), announces today that the United States government has received its final warnings about heavy infrastructure damage, and loss of life predicted from catastrophic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in the immediate future.

Based on extensive climate change and seismic research conducted since 2010, by leading scientists and researchers in both fields, the IEVPC has just issued its last warnings to the U.S. government and governors of the states affected, to begin immediate preparations for the worst series of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions the US has seen in the last 200 to 350 years.

Specifically, within the federal government, the IEVPC has notified the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA), an agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the US Geological Survey, (USGS), an arm of the Department of the Interior (DOI), to start at once to prepare the country for these predicted disasters. Mr. John L. Casey, CEO at the IEVPC, has sent warning letters to FEMA during 2015 and recently on May 13, 2016. He has also passed on these warnings to the USGS and all governors in the affected states within the past two weeks, completing the IEVPC’s final notifications.

According to Dr. Dong Choi, geologist and IEVPC Director of Research in Australia, “Years of research have shown without question that declines in solar activity are strongly correlated with the planet’s worst earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Now that the next decline or ‘solar hibernation’ has begun, we will face significant risks to our people beginning as early as next year and lasting for at least twenty years.”

An Associate Scientist at the IEVPC, Dr. Arun Bapat, a seismic expert in India, adds, “The IEVPC has demonstrated that multi-parameter systems for earthquake prediction are the best means for advance warning of impending quakes. Now, combined with Mr. Casey’s seminal research on climate change, there is little doubt that we are heading into a very difficult time of latent seismic threat for our people.”

Similarly from Dr. Giovanni Gregori, a theoretical physicist and IEVPC Associate Scientist in Italy, “The IEVPC and Mr. Casey’s work on climate is closely related to geodynamic activity. For example, according to my “tide-driven” (TD) dynamo concept and the associated tectonic effects – we should expect the next several years to see an increased general seismic and volcanic activity. Accordingly, a solar hibernation is certainly very likely to be associated with a substantial release of planetary energy, and consequent revival of geodynamic and volcanic activity with all related hazards. All leaders worldwide need to take heed of the challenging and potentially dangerous period we are entering, and prepare their nations and their people accordingly.”

Dr. Thomas Jordan, one of the most respected geologists in the United States, and Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center, has recently concluded in a May 4, 2016 article in the LA Times, for example, that the San Andreas fault is “…locked, loaded and ready to go,” meaning a magnitude 8.0 or larger earthquake called ‘the big one’ could strike the region at any time.

Letters addressed to FEMA, the USGS, and governors also noted that the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) as well as most of the state of South Carolina are just as likely to sustain major, if not record quakes along with the high risk San Andreas fault and Cascadia Subduction zone in the West Coast states.


Analysis: ‘Palin has a much more solid grasp of ‘global warming’ than an overrated kid’s show actor’

Here’s what Palin said at the Climate Hustle premiere.

“There is a predetermined agenda definitely of those who I think are controlling the narrative right now on changes in the weather. There is definitely a political agenda behind all of this and as you suggested people who are involved in this issue they are not stupid. They have studied this stuff. They have studied the data that they are erroneously delivering to the public to make us think that we can somehow change the weather and how they do that is to grow government and allow the government to have more control over us, our homes, our businesses, our families, our lives, and it’s quite unfortunate because these people must be purposely doing this, right? Because they are smart enough to know better.”

There’s more sense in that one paragraph than Bill Nye has spoken in the last twenty years.

According to his liberal media apologists we should take Nye seriously because “he has been a visiting professor at Cornell, and is an executive at the Planetary Society” and because he has a degree in mechanical engineering. But the former just goes to show how much the Green Blob rewards its own; and the latter hardly reflects too well on his integrity: of all the STEM majors I’ve encountered in climate debates, the ones with engineering degrees tend to be the most hard-headedly skeptical about the climate science religion because you don’t build bridges by fudging data.

Milo got him about right in this exquisite takedown.

One of Nye’s favourite pastimes is climate change fearmongering. “This isn’t something you should be debating or denying,” he said last year. Because as we all know, shutting down debate and scepticism is how real science works. Nye also signed a letter calling on media companies not to give airtime or column inches to climate sceptics.

Like most climate alarmists, Nye is a hypocrite. He spent earth day 2015 spewing tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere as he tooled around in Air Force One with Obama. How typical — lecturing Americans about their Sport Utility Vehicles from the comfort of a private plane.

Nye’s only serious claim to be the “Science Guy”, as Milo rightly noted, is having a name that rhymes with it.

“I like to imagine some brilliant scientist named Phil Frye drunkenly ranting in a bar: “It should have been me!”

As far as the liberal media is concerned, Palin is so obviously wrong about anything to do with climate science it doesn’t even need to demonstrate why she is wrong. Hence this sneering piece by the Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg.

Read more

RELATED ARTICLE: 16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Bill Nye and Sarah Palin. AP file photos.

awed environmental news

Recent Energy and Environmental News

The latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, is now available online. As always, I’d encourage you to review the entire list.

[FYI, based on helpful suggestions we continue to improve on the Model Local Wind Law, so make sure to periodically check that out. Please start by reading the last two pages first. This is a work in progress, so if you have any ideas to make it better, let me know. Hope you find it useful

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


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

Video: What Do Scientists Say

After 10 Years, an Inconvenient Truth is Alarmingly Inaccurate

NASA: Doubling SLR by Data Tampering

US General’s Senate Testimony: Climate Change and War

Climate Crisis and Political Power

CEI Strikes Back At Unlawful Subpoena

PS: As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off the list, please let me know that too.

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

ABC Jimmy Kimmel

‘Climate Hustle’ attacked by ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, drops ‘F-Bomb’ – I Challenge Him to Watch Film & Apologize

It is obvious Mr. Kimmel has not seen ‘Climate Hustle’ or he would have known better than to recite the same propaganda litany of climate ‘facts’ which the movie deals with head-on. Using a video of cursing scientists warning of a tired litany of doom, using terms like ‘apocalyptic’; ‘catastrophic’; and ‘extremely dire’ was bland and predictable and the very reason that ‘Climate Hustle’ was made.

Apparently, Kimmel thinks failure to believe in man-made global warming fears is akin to not believing in gravity or yogurt. Odd.

Mr. Kimmel, I challenge you to watch ‘Climate Hustle’ and issue an apology for your climate pabulum that you spewed to viewers. ‘Climate Hustle’ was made to counter the very boilerplate rants that you, Mr. Kimmel, engaged in. The public needs to view ‘Climate Hustle’ if, for no other reason, than to hear Mr. Kimmel’s climate talking points dismantled. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

By Craig Bannister – May 3, 2016

When critics trash a film, they’ve usually actually seen it – but, not ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel. So, the filmmaker of movie debunking climate hysteria is challenging Kimmel to attend a private screening.

The “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” host used seven minutes of his Monday show to mock a climate skeptic’s film he obviously hadn’t seen – since he repeats the very alarmist talking points the film debunks.

Kimmel bashed “Climate Hustle,” a climate skeptic film that aired in 400 theaters nationwide Monday, by making misleading, unsupportable, and inaccurate claims, and personally attacking Gov. Sarah Palin for supporting the film.

He then aired a two-minute climate change advocacy “message” featuring scientists dropping the “F-Bomb” to insult anyone skeptical of man-made climate change.

Kimmel’s rant against “Climate Hustle” displays a complete ignorance of the content of the film – and deploys the same shopworn deceitful and mean-spirited tactics the film exposes and addresses.

In “Climate Hustle”:

  • Former U.N. Climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. explains how, since alarmists can’t debate the facts, they attack the messenger (as Kimmel personally insults Palin and the scientists drop the F-Bomb on skeptics),
  • The “97% scientific consensus” claim Kimmel cites is revealed to be the product of slanted methodology – one of which didn’t even poll 97 scientists,
  • Kimmel’s “hottest years ever” claim is dismantled and debunked,
  • The Big Money driving climate influence is shown to be on the activist side – in terms of grants, research funding, alarmist advocacy, etc. – not, as Kimmel claims, coming from corporate “polluters,” and
  • Renowned dissenting scientists (including a Nobel Laureate and a moon-mission astronaut) share data and analysis debunking climate hysteria – not the ignorant, average slobs Kimmel accuses his dissenting viewers of being.

In response to Kimmel’s uninformed, agenda-driven rant on national television, “Climate Hustle” producer, writer and host Marc Morano is challenging Kimmel to view the film.

Morano tells MRCTV:

“It is obvious Mr. Kimmel has not seen ‘Climate Hustle’ or he would have known better than to recite the same propaganda litany of climate ‘facts’ which the movie deals with head-on. Using a video of cursing scientists warning of a tired litany of doom, using terms like ‘apocalyptic’; ‘catastrophic’; and ‘extremely dire’ was bland and predictable and the very reason that ‘Climate Hustle’ was made.

“Apparently, Kimmel thinks failure to believe in man-made global warming fears is akin to not believing in gravity or yogurt. Odd.

“Mr. Kimmel, I challenge you to watch ‘Climate Hustle’ and issue an apology for your climate pabulum that you spewed to viewers. ‘Climate Hustle’ was made to counter the very boilerplate rants that you, Mr. Kimmel, engaged in. The public needs to view ‘Climate Hustle’ if, for no other reason, than to hear Mr. Kimmel’s climate talking points dismantled.

“Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.”

“If Jimmy Kimmel is actually interested in the facts, he’ll step up and watch the film, instead of continuing to recite inaccurate, fear-mongering clichés on blind faith,” Morano added.

Jimmy Kimmel Transcript: 

“2014 was the warmest year ever until 2015 became the warmest year ever. Now 2016 might turn out to be even warmer than either of those. You know how you know climate change is real? When the hottest year on record is whatever year it currently is.

“A huge majority of climate scientists say climate change is happening. They say we’re causing it and we need to do something about it before it has a terrible effect on all of us. There’s no debate about the greenhouse effect, just like there’s no debate about gravity. It someone throws a piano off the roof, I don’t care what Sarah Palin tells you. Get out of the way, because it’s coming down on your head.

“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree on this. And 97 percent of scientists don’t agree on much. Even one out of five dentists don’t believe in sugarless gum for their patients that chew gum.

But Almost half our representatives in Washington apparently know more about science than our scientists, or they pretend to because big corporations give them a lot of money to make sure they can keep doing the destructive things that they do. And the idea that this is some kind of left wing conspiracy is — what if I decided to deny the existence of yogurt? Think about it. I’ve seen the containers, I just don’t believe there’s anything in them. I believe yogurt is a conspiracy created by John Stamos. You’d think I was insane, and I would be insane, but this is not that different from that. To me the big question is, either you believe in science or you don’t. Why do we believe scientists when it comes to molecules and the speed of light and Cialis, but not this? Because members of Congress, who we don’t even like, by the way, because people who take money from companies that make pollution for a living told us not to worry about it. Now, and I know I’ll get beaten over the head by every wacko website, and I know there will be a lot of what the hell do you know, go back to girls jumping on trampolines. This is not about what I know, this is about what scientists know. So I hope that for the next two minutes, put your political leanings aside, forget about whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, forget the labels, and pay attention to the following message. Decide for yourself, the people you’re about to see are scientists, they’re Americans, they’re not part of some imaginary conspiracy, they’re just a smarter version of us. Watch this, and if at the end you disagree, while we’re all underwater I hope you’ll be that last one that gets a snorkel.


ARADHNA TRIPATI: Hi, I’m Aradhna Tripati, I’m a paleoclimatologist and isotope geochemist.

ALEX HALL: Hi, I’m Alex Hall, and I’m a climate scientist.

JEREMY PAL: I’m Jeremy Pal, and I’m a hydroclimatologist.

NINA KARNOVSKY: I’m Nina Karnovsky, and I’m a polar ecologist.

CHUCK TAYLOR: I’m Chuck Taylor, and I’m an environmental analytical chemist.

JOHN DORSEY: I’m John Dorsey, and I’m a marine environmental scientist.

KARNOVSKY: Over the past 40 years, thousands of scientists have studied climate change.

TAYLOR: Definitely happening.

TRIPATI: And it’s caused by human beings.

PAL: That’s you and me.

HALL: And the consequences could be extremely dire.

DORSEY: Catastrophic.

KARNOVSKY: Apocalyptic.

TRIPATI: And here’s the thing, when we tell you all this, we’re not f***ing with you.

PAL: We’re not f***ing with you.

TAYLOR: Definitely not f***ing with you.

DORSEY: Why would we f*** with you?

PAL: Think about it.

HALL: If I wanted to screw with people, do you think I would have gone into climate science?

DORSEY: If we were f***ing with you I’m sure we could do a lot better than anthropogenic climate change.

TRIPATI: I’d probably tell you that a meteor was coming, and then try to sell you a helmet.


The Reviews Are in! ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘the most dangerous documentary of year’ – ‘Wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’ – ‘Lays waste to Gore’ – ‘Brutal & Extremely Funny’

Bill Nye, ‘The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!’: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ (Exclusive Video)

Variety Mag. Exclusive: Sarah Palin Backing ‘Climate Hustle’ Film – May 2nd Nationwide Theatrical Release

‘Climate Hustle’ goes to DC: Skeptical film to premiere on Capitol Hill; Panel with Gov. Sarah Palin, Brent Bozell & Appearance by Warmist Bill Nye

Skeptical ‘Climate Hustle’ Film Coming to Theaters Nationwide May 2, for a One-Night Event

It’s Coming….’Climate Hustle’ film hits Theatres May 2nd! One night national theater event! – Watch New Trailer – Popcorn & Climate

Protesters, police, chaos! Climate Hustle ‘staged its triumphant world premiere’ – ‘Police cordoned off the road’ – Exclusive Video/Photos


Reviews Are in! ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘Wickedly effective’ – ‘Lays waste to Al Gore’

Nationwide Theatre Event (Now including Canada!) – One Night Only May 2 – With introduction by Weather Channel Founder John Coleman & Exclusive panel discussion following movie with Gov. Sarah Palin, Brent Bozell, Climatologist Dr. David Legates, Marc Morano & Special Appearance by Bill Nye

Go to for theatre near you and to buy tickets.

Bill Nye, UN Climate Scientist Warn Moviegoers to Shun Film’s 1-Day Theater Release: ‘Not in Our National Interest’

Sampling of Reviews for ‘Climate Hustle’ 

‘Powerful documentary…demolishes the climate agenda’ 

‘It’s hard not to laugh’

‘This could be the most important movie of the year’ 

‘The film lays waste to Gore’s thoroughly debunked movie’

‘Most dangerous documentary of the year’

 ‘Climate Hustle is a brilliant use of their own ammunition against them’

‘The film’s strength is its wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’

‘A brutal and extremely funny takedown of the science behind global warming’

‘Humor throughout the film is absolutely fantastic’

‘Powerful documentary…demolishes the climate agenda’ 

‘A smart, energetic global warming documentary’

‘Humorous’ – ‘A must see’


By:  – Climate DepotApril 28, 2016 10:53 PM

May 2 – One Night Only – 7:00 pm – Find a theater near you and buy tickets online at

Bill Nye, UN Climate Scientist Warn Moviegoers to Shun Film’s 1-Day Theater Release: ‘Not in Our National Interest’ – Leading climate activists are warning moviegoers to shun the May 2nd nationwide one-day theater screening of “Climate Hustle,” a new film debunking climate alarmism and its big government solutions. Bill Nye (not a real “science guy,” FYI), who entertains the idea of throwing climate skeptics in the slammer, warned the film’s producer, Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano, that “Climate Hustle’s” content endangers not just the nation, but also the world: “I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.” U.N. Climate Scientist Michael Oppenheimer has, likewise, condemned the film – without even viewing it – for daring to dispute climate alarmism. “Marc is a propagandist,” the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientist cautions viewers.

Review: ‘Climate Hustle is the most dangerous documentary of the year’ – ‘Brutally effective’ – ‘It’s hard not to laugh’ – Christian Toto of Hollywood In Toto: ‘Climate Hustle’ is just the tonic the global warming debate needs’

‘We see Morano trying to challenge a few scientists, but it typically ends with them fleeing the microphones. After all, he’s no stranger to debate.’ – ‘The film’s most effective moments come when left-of-center experts describe how they abandoned their previous climate change positions. Doing so opened them up to scathing critiques from their colleagues. Some even found themselves unwelcome at gigs they held for some time. It’s another signal that dissent won’t be tolerated in climate change circles.

MEDIA DECLARES WAR ON ‘CLIMATE HUSTLE’ Film – ‘The press already is working overtime to debunk its narrative’

MSNBC reports on ‘Climate Hustle’ DC Premiere: Calls film ‘a new anti-climate change documentary’

Associated Press covers ‘Climate Hustle’ DC Premiere with Palin: ‘Seeks to debunk what it calls myths & hype about human-caused global warming’ – AP reports on Climate Hustle:  ‘New documentary seeks to debunk what it calls myths and hype about human-caused global warming’ – Film exposes ‘what it calls myths and hype about human-caused global warming’ – ‘Questions whether there is a genuine scientific consensus about global warming’

‘Climate Hustle’ Challenges Media’s Climate Alarmism in Theaters May 2

Review of ‘Climate Hustle’: ‘This could be the most important movie of the year’ – ‘Powerful documentary…demolishes the climate agenda’ – WorldNetDaily review: ‘CLIMATE HUSTLE’ WILL ROCK ALARMISTS TO THEIR CORE’

Watch: Morano in Tux on TV for DC Film Premiere – Teases Mystery Animal that Was Mascot for both Cooling & Warming fears – Bill Nye’s not the only one who can wear a bow tie!

Which animal was used as a mascot for both the ‘global cooling’ scare in the 1970s and the ‘global warming’ scare of today!?

NBC News: Sarah Palin & Bill Nye Featured in Climate Skeptic Film

National Review Gives Two Thumbs Up: ‘Climate Hustle, a brutal and extremely funny takedown of the science behind global warming

Breitbart Review: ‘Climate Hustle is dynamite’ – ‘The Perfect Antidote To Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth’

Review: ‘Climate Hustle’ Exposes Global-warming Con Job – ‘Humor throughout the film is absolutely fantastic’

Climate Hustle review: ‘Humorous’ – ‘A must see’ – ‘Hits the science straight on’ – ‘FILM EXPOSES ABSURDITY OF ‘CLIMATE’ MOVEMENT’

‘Climate Hustle’ review: ‘This is an amazing film…Really excellent…uses humor…May be the best skeptical film ever’

Watch: Exclusive clip of ‘Climate Hustle’ on Fox News – Steve Doocy & Marc Morano reveal mystery climate mascot animal

Steve Doocy and Marc Morano examine a stuffed armadillo (Fox News)

Review: Climate Hustle is a smart, energetic global warming documentary – ‘The film lays waste to Gore’s thoroughly debunked ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ – Thomas Richard – Environmental Examiner review of ‘Climate Hustle’: ‘Morano smartly lets the environmental bullies do the talking, through clips, headlines, ads and promotional videos.’

‘The film lays waste to Al Gore’s thoroughly debunked movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’

Meteorologist Anthony Watts review: ‘Climate Hustle is a brilliant use of their own ammunition against them’- ‘The film’s strength is it’s wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’– Anthony Watts: ‘The film’s strength is its wickedly effective use of slapstick humor, and making use of the words and deeds of alarmists to make you laugh at them.’ ‘You can’t help but come away laughing.’ – Monday May 2nd will be an historic night, since there’s never been a skeptic film like this before.’

Review: ‘Climate Hustle is informative & entertaining, pointed & humorous’

Watch: Morano on Cavuto’s Fox Show: ‘I have a film coming on May 2 which shows warmists comparing climate skeptics to Holocaust deniers’

Wash Post reviews ‘Climate Hustle’: ‘There remains a significant coterie of skeptics, doubters and outright deniers’ – Skeptics ‘still draw significant attention — “Climate Hustle,” according to its producers, is slated to air at a large number of theaters across the U.S. on May 2.’

New York Times on ‘Climate Hustle’s’ Morano: ‘He has risen to be the most savvy media manipulator of the climate skeptic crowd’ – Morano ‘pretty much chewed up Bill Nye the Science Guy on CNN with Piers Morgan a couple years ago.’

Watch: Fox features ‘Climate Hustle’: Stuart Varney: ‘Some high profile climate scientists have retracted their former positions. They are profiled in Climate Hustle’ – Stuart Varney: ‘Some high profile climate scientists have retracted their former positions. They are now climate change skeptics. They are profiled in a new film. It’s called Climate Hustle.’

Fox Tammy Bruce reacts to Bill Nye pondering jailing skeptics: ‘No stand-up comedian is going to put me in jail.’

Marc Morano behind Climate Hustle worked for Rush Limbaugh and counts Sarah Palin as a fan | Daily Mail Online

UK Daily Mail: Meet the man behind ‘Climate Hustle’, the film ‘antidote’ to Gore’s film: Marc Morano worked for Rush Limbaugh, counts Palin as a fan & founded site that questions AGW

UK Daily Mail’s negative profile or Morano: 

Marc Morano, 46, co-wrote and narrated new film Climate Hustle 

The film aims to debunk what it calls myths and hype about human-caused global warming

Sarah Palin claims it offers a countering view to Al Gore’s global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth

Morano founded the, a site that ‘questions the theory of man-made global warming’

While working for Cybercast News Service, he was the first to report on accusations John Kerry exaggerated his military service record 

He’s worked as communications director for Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe and a reporter for Rush Limbaugh’s TV show  

Skeptic Documentary Climate Hustle: Don’t Believe The Global Warming ‘Shell Game’

Related Links: 

Bill Nye, ‘The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!’: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ (Exclusive Video)

Variety Mag. Exclusive: Sarah Palin Backing ‘Climate Hustle’ Film – May 2nd Nationwide Theatrical Release

‘Climate Hustle’ goes to DC: Skeptical film to premiere on Capitol Hill; Panel with Gov. Sarah Palin, Brent Bozell & Appearance by Warmist Bill Nye

Skeptical ‘Climate Hustle’ Film Coming to Theaters Nationwide May 2, for a One-Night Event

It’s Coming….’Climate Hustle’ film hits Theatres May 2nd! One night national theater event! – Watch New Trailer – Popcorn & Climate

Protesters, police, chaos! Climate Hustle ‘staged its triumphant world premiere’ – ‘Police cordoned off the road’ – Exclusive Video/Photos