Democrats in general and President Obama in particular are devout followers of the radical green agenda. The idea that global warming/climate change is the greatest threat is according to Donald Trump is “ridiculous”.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Trump under fire for saying “there’s something going on” with Islam
Video: Muslim asylum seekers in Italy approve of Paris jihad attacks
Greasy Islamophobe that I am, I thought the only powerful rebuke to jihad terrorists would be killing them in large numbers. Good thing Obama is here to enlighten me and show that a bunch of politicians jawing over politically correct myths about the weather will actually stop the jihadis in their tracks.
Doubtless this climate change conference will have the Islamic State jihadis turning in their weapons and signing up for jobs programs forthwith; Obama better be ready to send several divisions of career counselors to Iraq and Syria.
RELATED ARTICLES:
22 Times Obama Admin Declared Climate Change a Greater Threat than Terrorism
Dearborn Muslims protest: “We are victims twice — by Islamophobia and ISIS”
AUSTIN, Texas – A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.
The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”
From Left to Right: Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen & Dr. Patrick Moore.
Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.”
“Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.
Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is – when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. — is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”
Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind.
“People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.
“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity – meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained.
“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted.
“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.
“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he said. (Also See: Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues)
“The UN IPCC wisely avoided making the claim that 51% of a small change in temperature constitutes a problem. They left this to the politicians and anyone who took the bait,” he said.
Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for a catastrophic claims of man-made global warming. See: Backing away from climate alarm? NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone says ‘we don’t have that kind of evidence’ to claim we are ‘going to fry’ from AGW
Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the “language of science.”
“The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote.
“Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.
Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science.
“John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added.
Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter.
Lindzen concluded his talk by saying: “Learn how to identify claims that have no alarming implications and free to say ‘So what?’”
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.”
“Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path.
“Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued.
“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.
“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.
Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.
Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.”
“If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said.
“If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared.
Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus.
“97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.
Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
“Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared.
“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said.
“We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” he continued.
“The deserts are greening from rising CO2,” he added.
“Co2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years,” Moore said.
Note: CFACT’s new skeptical documentary, Climate Hustle, is set to rock the UN climate summit with red carpet’world premiere in Paris.
“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS.” That is true. However, it contradicts Sanders’ other claim, that climate change, that is, “limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops,” led to the rise of terrorism. If it were really all about fights over diminished resources, then these jihad groups would have arisen even without the U.S. taking out Saddam Hussein, no? In any case, if climate change has given rise to terrorism, why don’t we see Arab Christian or Yazidi terrorists? After all, they lived in Iraq and Syria alongside the Muslims. So why weren’t they driven by the lack of water and land to form their own terrorist groups?
It is astonishing that a man this deluded could be taken seriously as a candidate for President. But his view here is a mainstream Democrat Party position.
“Bernie Sanders: Climate Change is Directly Related To Terrorism,” by Michelle Fields, Breitbart, November 15, 2015:
Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said on Saturday that climate change is directly related to terrorism.“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.
“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see counties [sic] all over the world…they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”
Sanders said at the second Democratic debate in Iowa that climate change poses the biggest threat to America’s national security and to security of the world.
Sanders also argued that the growth of national terrorism and instability in the Middle East was caused by the invasion of Iraq.
“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS,” Sanders said.
When Sanders was asked his thoughts about Hillary Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war he added: ” I don’t think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now.”
“I think that was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the more than history of the United States,” hr [sic] claimed.
RELATED ARTICLES:
In the wake of the Paris jihad attacks, France says it’s “essential” to combat…climate change
FBI top dog won’t release motive in Chattanooga jihad shootings: “We don’t want to smear people”
Good they have their priorities straight. Also, it’s much easier to combat a politically correct fiction than a large and looming reality that no one wants to confront. Maybe Bernie Sanders could become President of France.
“France Says It’s ‘Essential’ To Fight Global Warming In Wake Of Paris Terror Attacks,” by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, November 14, 2015:
The United Nations will still hold its global warming summit in Paris this month despite deadly terror attacks that rocked the French capital Friday night. France’s foreign minister says the summit is “essential” to fighting global warming.
.@LaurentFabius says #COP21 is essential to combat #climatechange and that it will take place despite #ParisAttacks https://t.co/mHTZR3hQe8
— UN Climate Action (@UNFCCC) November 14, 2015
Despite the deadly attacks carried out by terrorists linked to the Islamic State, the U.N. has no plans to cancel the summit. U.N. and French officials likely see the summit as too important to cancel even in the wake of these shocking attacks. (RELATED: French Authorities Secure Concert Hall: 12 Freed, 118 Dead)
Indeed, many world leaders believe fighting global warming is a bigger long-term threat than terrorism. Minister Fabius himself warned that “climate change is a threat to peace” and a greater threat than terrorism.
“Terrorism is significant, but naked hunger is as significant as terrorism,” Fabius said in a speech last month. “And the relationship between terrorist activities and naked hunger are obvious. If you look at the vectors of recruitment into terrorist cells, most of the most vulnerable are hunger-prone areas.”
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have also claimed on numerous occasions there is “no greater threat” than global warming facing Americans or the world. “I am convinced that no challenge poses a greater threat to our future and future generations than a changing climate,” Obama said in a speech in August announcing new regulations on power plants.
“The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it,” Obama said in his State of the Union speech in January.
Obama has made signing a global climate treaty a major effort during his second term. The president clearly wants such a treaty to be a part of his legacy. The administration has been touting its environmental policies in recent months, claiming that reducing CO2 emissions could even help avoid violent conflicts like the Syrian civil war.
“It is not a coincidence that immediately prior to the civil war in Syria, the country experienced the worst drought on record,” Kerry said in a recent speech. “Now, I’m not telling you that the crisis in Syria was caused by climate change,” but global warming “clearly made a bad situation a lot worse.”
For those in Paris, however, global warming is not likely on their minds in the wake of Islamic State terror attacks that killed more than 120 people and injured many more Friday night. Gunmen yelling “Allahu Akbar” and “this is for Syria” attacked six locations across the city, using firearms and explosives to inflict destruction and chaos on unsuspecting innocents.
Obama and Kerry are still expected to attend the climate summit November 30th despite the Paris attacks. Though U.N. organizers are still assessing the situation and the security risks of having so many world leaders in one place.
“The government will decide on the action to be taken,” Pierre-Henri Guignard, secretary-general of the climate summit, told the French paper Le Monde. France had plans to set up border checks ahead of the conference, and some 30,000 police officers were set to provide security for the summit. Some 40,000 people are expected to attend the climate summit later this month. The U.N’s top global warming official expressed her “deep pain” in the wake of the attacks, but Christiana Figueres said nothing about cancelling the climate summit that’s expected to yield a global treaty to cut carbon dioxide emissions….
RELATED ARTICLES:
Minnesota state representative candidate: “ISIS isn’t necessarily evil”
Bernie Sanders: “Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism”
Philippe Verdier
France’s top meteorologist Mr Philippe Verdier has been fired claims in his new book Climat Investigation (Climate Investigation) that leading climatologists and political leaders have “taken the world hostage” with misleading data.
“Every night I address five million French people to talk to you about the wind, the clouds and the sun. And yet there is something important, very important that I haven’t been able to tell you, because it’s neither the time nor the place to do so,” he said in a promotional video.
He added: “We are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”
The outspoken views led France 2 to take him off the air this past Monday. “I received a letter telling me not to come. I’m in shock,” he told RTL radio reporters. “This is a direct extension of what I say in my book, namely that any contrary views must be eliminated.”
RELATED VIDEO:
ABOUT GENE KAPROWSKI
Gene Koprowski is the director of marketing at The Heartland Institute. Koprowski is the author of two books, co-author of another two books, and has been a journalist covering science and health policy since the 1980s. He has been a regular, contributing writer to The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, and Entrepreneur magazine, a staff writer for Forbes ASAP, and a columnist for United Press International (UPI). He earned an Emmy Award nomination for his work for Foxnews.com in 2008 from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (Chicago) and an investigative reporting award from the Associated Press Editors in 1988. Overall, he has published under his byline nearly 4,000 reports, op/eds, and features during his extensive journalism career. He served as a health policy adviser to the governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell, from 2010-2014. He’s pictured here with his daughter, Katherine, outside the governor’s mansion in Richmond, Virginia. He is a former U.S. Naval Reserve officer and served in the Supreme Allied Command/Atlantic Headquarters and NATO. He holds degrees from The University of Chicago, and Northwestern University, and completed fellowships at the University of London, King’s College, Institute of Psychiatry, and at the Stanford University School of Medicine. He earned a professional degree in medicine with honors. Koprowski also completed a fellowship at the Institute of Psychoanalysis.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Top U.S. Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam
Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
Icelandic volcano’s toxic gas is triple that of Europe’s industry
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Somewhat Reasonable.
“In the years prior to civil war breaking out in Syria, that country also experienced its worst drought on record. Farming families moved en masse into urban centers, increasing political unrest and further priming the country for conflict.”
There was a massive movement from rural areas to urban centers in the early 20th century in the U.S. Yet it did not create anything like the Islamic State. Rice’s is a pseudo-analysis that sounds superficially plausible until one realizes that it depends for its appearance of cogency on a proposition she denies: that Islamic texts, and the clerics who teach from them, incite believers to violence. For without the influence of those texts, there would be no necessary reason why the movement to urban centers would have touched off the present conflict we see in Syria.
“Susan Rice Blames Climate Change For Conflict in Syria,” by Charlie Spiering, Breitbart, October 13, 2015:
In her most dramatic speech to date about climate change, National Security Advisor Susan Rice suggests climate change was partially responsible for the conflict in Syria and represents a looming threat to the entire world.
“In the years prior to civil war breaking out in Syria, that country also experienced its worst drought on record,” she said during a political speech at Stanford University. “Farming families moved en masse into urban centers, increasing political unrest and further priming the country for conflict.”
An alarmed Rice warned that climate change was “an advancing menace” that portended doom for the nations around the world.
“Today, we face no greater long-term challenge than climate change, an advancing menace that imperils so many of the other things we hope to achieve,” she said according to advance text of her speech.
Rice echoed many themes promulgated by the Obama administration but ratcheted up the alarmist rhetoric to a fever pitch.
“Consider the impacts—to the global economy and to our shared security—when rising seas begin to swallow nations whole,” she explained while discussing rising sea levels of “as much as 20 feet.”…
RELATED ARTICLES:
Because of Defense Spending Cuts, Navy Won’t Have Aircraft Carrier in Middle East Anymore
3 Dead, Dozens Wounded, in 4 Islamic Terror Attacks in Israel
Texas Muslim lied to U.S. agents about allegiance to the Islamic State
Video: “Palestinian” Muslim hits pedestrians with car, attacks them with meat cleaver
New members added to Senate Jihad Caucus as legislators tell Obama to speed up screening of Syrians
The media is once again attempting to portray the current California drought as historically unprecedented. See: California
But recent peer-reviewed studies and historical data refute these drought claims.
Two new studies show that global warming is not behind California drought – there is a gigantic warm blob in the Pacific Ocean that is fueling California’s four-year-long drought, and it has nothing to do with global warming. Two new studiesreleased in the journal “Geophysical Research Letters”, explain how this large expanse of warm ocean water is affecting California’s weather as well as the East Coast’s past two brutal winters. Read more here.
Other studies counter the notion that California is experiencing unprecedented drought.
AMS Journal study finds California drought is ‘not unprecedented’ over past 440 years: 9 other droughts as bad or worse – Published in American Meteorological Society journal – Study: ‘An analysis of the October 2013–September 2014 precipitation in the western United States and in particular over the California-Nevada region suggests this anomalously dry season, while extreme, is not unprecedented in comparison with the ~120-year long instrumental record of water year (WY, October–September) totals, and in comparison with a 407-year WY precipitation reconstruction back to 1571. Over this longer period nine other years are known or estimated to have been nearly as dry or drier than WY 2014. The three-year deficit for WY’s 2012–2014, which in the California-Nevada region exceeded the annual mean precipitation, is more extreme but also not unprecedented, occurring three other times over the past ~ 440 years in the reconstruction.’
NOAA Study: Causes of Calif. drought are natural, not man-made – Natural weather patterns and climate variability, not man-made global warming, are causing the historic drought that’s parching California, says a study out today from federal scientists. “It’s important to note that California’s drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state,” said Richard Seager, report lead author and professor with Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. The report, “Causes and Predictability of the 2011-14 California Drought,” was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say – ‘The state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began’ – Scientists who study the West’s long-term climate patterns say the state has been parched for much longer stretches before that 163-year historical period began. Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.’
E&E News on 2012 U.S. drought: ‘For the scientists who take the long view of history, it’s merely a climatological blip’ — 1930s ‘Dust Bowl & 1988 both eclipse 2012 drought, scientists say’ – ‘Scientists say [2012] drought is practically embryonic compared with severity & extent of others in America’s past…The Dust Bowl held on for as many as 8 years in some parts of Great Plains, with successive dry spells hitting in 1934, 1936 & 1939-1940. The multiyear drought of 1950s began in SW but eventually spread to cover 10 states before it ebbed in 1957. The current drought, in contrast, is just about 2 months old’
In addition, many other peer-‘reviewed studies and data refute the notion of unprecedented drought in California or elsewhere.
Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends – Extreme weather at or near historic lows.
New Research Confirms Human CO2 Not Causing A Global Drought Increase
New Research Confirms Human CO2 Not Causing A Global Drought Increase – ‘Droughts in the U.S. are more frequent and more intense during COLDER periods’
Climatologist Dr. John Christy in testimony to Congress: ‘Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation’ — ‘These recent U.S. ‘extremes’ were exceeded in previous decades’ — ‘The expression of ‘worse than we thought’ climate change as documented in [James] Hansen’s OpEd does not stand up to scrutiny’
Prof. Pielke Jr. on new Nature drought study: ‘It means that a widely accepted and oft-repeated consensus position expressed in IPCC 2007 now appears to have been incorrect’ — Pielke Jr.: ‘This should not be unexpected as a consensus position is a snapshot of perspectives, and in science, perspectives can change based on new evidence and study…This places drought into a category with tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes & other phenomena where the evidence does not support claims that things are progressively getting worse — with more frequent and intense extreme events on climate time scales’
Prof. Pielke Jr. on new Nature drought study: ‘Once again the lesson is that if you are looking for a signal of human-caused climate change, it is best not to look at such extremes’ — Pielke Jr.:’There is very little evidence to support claims that the influence of such changes can be observed
in the observational record of extreme events. Advocates who justify action on climate change by appeals to the latest extreme event go well beyond what science can support, and in the process undercut the very cause that they are advocating for’
Nature paper: Global droughts unchanged in 60 years: ‘Worldwide drought is about the same now as it was in 1950′ — ‘Researchers finally accounting for fact that warmer world usually means more evaporation (especially from oceans) & thus more rain’ — ‘How many images have we seen of drought-stricken cracked land, or been told this is future?…Since end of WWII humans have produced 85% of all their CO2 emissions, but here is a new study showing that for all those emissions, & for all that warming, droughts back then were just as bad globally as they are today’
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: Over the climate time scales ‘droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century’ — ‘Some places have become dryer, others wetter, and not much confidence in asserting the presence of any trends at the global scale.’ — Pielke Jr. summarizing the bottom-line conclusions of two of the most recent major scientific assessments of extreme events and climate change, one by the US govt. released in 2008 then reaffirmed in the CCSP Unified Synthesis under the Obama Admin., and the 2nd from the UN IPCC.
Article in Nature says extreme weather events can’t currently be attributed to global warming — An editorial published in the current issue of nature notes that ‘Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.’ — ‘One critic argued that, given the insufficient observational data and the coarse and mathematically far-from-perfect climate models used to generate attribution claims, they are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all.’
1974: Flooding, Drought, Crop Loss And Mild Winters Blamed On Global Cooling: TIME Magazine June 1974: ‘Another Ice Age?’: ‘In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S.,
Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest’
2014 Study: ‘The humanitarian crisis of the late 2000s largely predated the drought period.Focusing on external factors like drought and climate change in the context of the Syrian uprising is counterproductive as it diverts attention from more fundamental political and economic motives behind the protests and shifts responsibility away from the Syrian government.
Study: Drought Of 1934 In North America, During The Dust Bowl, Was The Worst In Thousand Years – ‘The drought of 1934 in North America was the driest and the most widespread of the last millennium, according to a new study based on a reconstruction of North America’s history of drought over the last 1,000 years. – Study published in the Oct. 17 edition of Geophysical Research Letters by researchers from NASA and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
“It was the worst by a large margin, falling pretty far outside the normal range of variability that we see in the record,” Ben Cook, a climate scientist at NASA and the study’s lead author, said in a statement.
Top UN scientist Dr. Kevin Trenberth and 19 other scientists have become so tired of debating global warming that they are now apparently seeking to jail those who disagree with them. One of the scientists who signed the letter was Alan Robock of Rutgers University. Robock has expressed very positive views of Cuba’s Fidel Castro after trips there in 2010 and 2011. See: Rutger’s Prof. Alan Robock drools over Castro and his VIP treatment in 2010 trip to Cuba robock@envsci.rutgers.edu – Robock’s enchanted meeting with Castro: I stayed at ‘nicest hotel…I went in a black Mercedes…I went to private meeting with Fidel & his family…we had photo taken together’
Prof. Robock & Fidel Castro in 2010.2011 Trip.
[Note: This call for treating skeptics as racketeers comes the same week that the New York Times promoted equating climate skeptics to Hitler. See: ‘The Next Genocide’- NYT OpEd: Climate ‘deniers’ present ‘intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s’ ]
Climate skeptics heading to jail?
Letter reproduced in full:
Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren
September 1, 2015
Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,
As you
know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.
We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.
The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.
Sincerely,
Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, W
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VTEnd letter
Related Links:
UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s History Of Making Bold Claims Which Contradict Science
Democrat Sen. Whitehouse: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI): ‘In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise…The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.’
Related Link: Merchants of Smear: Prosecute Skeptics Like Gangsters?! Warmist Naomi Oreskes likes the idea of having climate ‘deniers’ prosecuted under the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) – Oreskes: ‘I think a RICO style of prosecution if a smart lawyer thought there was some aspect of the law that had been broken’
This is not the first time global warming activists have sought to try their opponents with treason or jail them. In 2014, thewarmist Gawker website wrote: ‘Arrest Climate-Change Deniers’ – ‘Those denialists should face jail’ – ‘Criminally negligent’ – ‘It’s time to punish the climate-change liars’
In 2009, New York Times Paul Krugman accused Congressmen who voted against climate cap-and-trade bill of ‘treason against the planet!’
‘Execute’ Skeptics! Krugman’s sentiment joined by fellow climate fear promoters
In June 2009, a public appeal was issued on an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S.
The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?” (For full story see: ‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’ – June 3, 2009)
After all the attention drawn to it by Climate Depot, the Talking Points Memo article was later pulled and the website published a retraction and apology, but the sentiment was stark and unequivocal and has significant company among climate fear promoters.
On June 5, 2009, Joe Romm of Climate Progress defended a posting on his website warning that climate skeptics would be strangled in bed for rejecting the view that we face a man-made climate crisis. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” warned the message posted on Climate Progress.
Romm, a former Clinton Administration official, pulled the comments after Climate Depot drew attention to them. “The original was clearly not a threat but a prediction — albeit one that I certainly do not agree with. Since some people misread it, I am editing it,” Romm wrote.
Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:
NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
A 2008 report found that ‘climate blasphemy’ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.
In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing.
November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” Yvo de Boer’s comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.
October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun
U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007) Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.”
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on ClimateDepot.com.
Christians have deep respect for “genuine” science. Atheists believe in junk science – lying for the sake of political science (pun intended).
President Obama seems to have missed the three absolutes about the climate: 1) the climate changes; 2) the changes are cyclical; and 3) there is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles.
President Obama issued dire warnings of the climate changes such as famine, migration, melting ice, sea level changes, natural disasters and flooding. These all are the effects of the climate changing. The cause is the natural cycles of the climate changing.
The only thing mankind can do about climate change is prepare for the changes.
Paul Driessen, TownHall, in a column titled “Climate issues we do need to address” writes:
We need to fix the climate of fraud, corruption, and policies that kill jobs, hope and people.
[ … ]
Battered economies continue to struggle. Investment banks are pulling out of developing countries. An already exploding and imploding Middle East now confronts a nuclear arms race and human exodus.
Complying just with federal regulations already costs American businesses and families $1.9 trillion per year, the Competitive Enterprise Institute calculates. That’s more than all 2014 personal and corporate income tax receipts combined – and Obama bureaucrats issued 3,554 new rules and regulations last year.
EPA’s 2,691-page Clean Power Plan is designed to eliminate coal mining and coal-fired power plants – and minimize natural gas substitutes. The CPP requires that gas use can increase by only 22% above 2012 levels by 2022, and just 5% per year thereafter. On top of that, new natural gas-fueled generating units that replace coal-fired power plants absurdly do not count toward state CO2 reduction mandates.
The Daily Signal reports:
Katie Tubb wrote earlier this week on President Obama’s trip to Alaska:
President Obama gave a doom and gloom speech yesterday at the Global Leadership in the Arctic (GLACIER) conference in Alaska to build momentum for the U.N. climate deal in Paris this December.
So far less than one third of countries have submitted plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions by the Wall Street Journal’s count.
According to Obama, “Climate change is happening faster than we’re acting” and the world is facing a future of more fires, more melting, more warming, more suffering.
But there are at least two major problems with his focus on global warming as he’s presented it in Alaska.
Obama continues to ignore science that doesn’t fit his narrative and has ignored sound evidence from people who disagree with him. Many of the environmental trends Obama has warned of do not appear to fit current realities.
In his speech he warned that,
“If [current] trend lines continue the way they are, there’s not going to be a nation on this earth that’s not going to be impacted negatively…More drought, more floods, rising sea levels, greater migration, more refugees, more scarcity, more conflict.”
Click on the image for the full Heartland Institute report.
However, Judith Curry, professor at Georgia Institute for Technology and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writes that when politicians talk about an undeniable climate “consensus” they are brushing over “very substantial disagreement about climate change that arises from:
All this leaves multiple ways to interpret and reason about the available evidence.”
RELATED ARTICLES:
Mt. Baker glaciers disappearing? A response to the Seattle Times
Report: The Top 10 Global Warming Lies of the Left
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Barack Obama, right, accompanied by Secretary of State John Kerry, left, speaking at the Global Leadership in the Arctic: Cooperation, Innovation, Engagement and Resilience (GLACIER) Conference at Dena’ina Civic and Convention Center in Anchorage, Alaska, Monday, Aug. 31, 2015. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Pope John Francis’ upcoming visit to the U.S. is generating quite a bit of excitement here, especially among his Catholic faithful. But for me and many others, his visit is generating consternation, not excitement.
Usually, most people tend to have great respect and affection for the Pope. He is usually viewed by the public as a beacon of moral guidance, even for those who are non-Catholics. This is definitely a view I once had of previous Popes.
But I must admit that my respect for this current Pope, John Francis is somewhat diminished.
I am totally confused by his constant advocating for policies that goes against the Catholic Church’s own teachings. On the issue of homosexuality his position is, “Who are we to judge?” Though church doctrine is very clear on this issue.
He is a fanatical supporter of open borders; in his view people have an inherent right to enter illegally into any country they choose as long as the ends justify the means.
He rabidly promotes theories in support of global warming, despite the fact that he is one of the biggest contributors to it. When the Pope travels, he normally charters an Alitalia A320 jet. It is estimated that the pope travels about 100,000 miles per year. So this means based on the type of plane the Pope flies, he emits 20 pounds of CO2 for every mile of flight which is 2,000,000 pounds a year.
Every denomination has their own precepts that their members must abide by. Likewise, nations have laws that their citizens or visitors must abide by.
Poverty or wanting a better life is not sufficient reason for people to break our laws to enter into our country. The Pope expects Catholics to abide by the rules of Catholicism; so why should America expect anything less from those who seek entry into our country?
So, by the Pope’s standard I, as a Baptist, should still be able to participate in all things Catholic; even though I don’t adhere to Catholicism.
The Pope, in many ways, is operating just like Obama is in the U.S. They both are picking and choosing which rules and laws they want to abide by.
Forgive me for not being able to get beyond the fact that the Pope has spent very little time dealing with the child abuse that has taken place in his church; but yet he seems to have plenty of time to meet with illegals, homosexuals and promote global warming
Am I the only one who finds it offensive that the Pope will be meeting with some of those in the U.S. illegally, but will not be meeting with families that have had family members killed, raped, or maimed by illegals?
Am I the only one who finds it offensive that the Pope will not be meeting with any of the victims of sexual abuse from within the Catholic Church?
Am I the only one who finds it offensive that the Pope constantly talks about income inequality and the need for employers to pay their employees more money; but he has never discussed what is the obligation of employees to their employers (more productivity and more efficiency, etc.)?
The Pope should not be aligned to a political agenda, but rather what is right or wrong.
America has no moral obligation to allow those who enter our country illegally to stay in our country no more so than the Pope allowing someone who refuses to abide by the rules of Catholicism should be allowed to say they are a member of the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, the Bible is very clear, a man’s first responsibility is for the well being of his family, not his neighbor’s family.
The Pope seems to be on a global tour to promote an entitlement agenda as opposed to being a beacon for right and wrong. Even if you are poor and downtrodden, you still are responsible for being responsible.
Many of the illegals coming to the U.S. are having children that they can’t afford to provide for. How many speeches has the Pope given on individual responsibility?
How many speeches has the Pope given on the need to fire and prosecute every priest that has molested or covered up sexual abuse of kids in the Catholic Church?
How many speeches has the Pope given about what are an employee’s obligations to his employer?
I really believe the Pope’s heart is in the right place, but the issues he is focusing on should be subservient to the more critical issues listed above.
I definitely think the church can and should play a constructive role in our society, especially to those who are in need. In many respects, I think the faith community is better equipped to deal with a lot of the social ills of our society than our government is.
But the Pope cannot shine the light on my darkness until he is first willing to shine the light on his on darkness. Until then, the Pope’s moral compass is pointing in the wrong direction.
It started with the pope. In his recent encyclical, Laudato Si’, he singled out air conditioning as a particularly good example of wasteful habits and excessive consumption that overcome our better natures:
People may well have a growing ecological sensitivity but it has not succeeded in changing their harmful habits of consumption which, rather than decreasing, appear to be growing all the more. A simple example is the increasing use and power of air-conditioning.
Now, it seems to be open season on air conditioning. From a raging Facebook debate over an article that claims that air conditioning is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy to an article in the Washington Post that calls the American use of air conditioning an “addiction” and compares it unfavorably to the European willingness to sweat through the heat of summer, air conditioning is under attack. So I want to defend it.
Understand that when I defend air conditioning, I do so as something of a reluctant proponent. I grew up in the Midwest, and I have always loved sitting on the screened-in porch, rocking on the porch swing, drinking a glass of something cold. I worked in Key West during the summer after my sophomore year of college, lived in an apartment with no air conditioning, and discovered the enormous value of ceiling fans. A lazy, hot summer day can be a real pleasure.
However, let’s not kid ourselves. There were frequent nights in my childhood when it was just too hot to sleep, and the entire family would hunker down in the one air-conditioned room of the house — my father’s attic study — to cool off at night. When we moved from that house to a place that had central air, none of us complained.
And after my recent article on home canning, my friend Kathryn wrote to say,
When I was growing up in the Deep South, everybody I knew had a garden, shelled beans and peas, and canned. It could have been an Olympic event. What I remember most — besides how good the food was — is how hot it was, all those hours spent over huge pots of boiling something or other on the stove in a house with no air conditioning.
There’s a lot to be said for being able to cook in comfort and to enjoy the screened-in porch by choice rather than necessity. Making your family more comfortable is one of the great advantages of an increasingly wealthy society, after all.
So when I read that the US Department of Energy says that you can save about 11 percent on your electric bill by raising the thermostat from 72 to 77 degrees, mostly I want to invite the Department of Energy to come over to my 1929 bungalow and see if they can get any sleep in my refinished attic bedroom when the thermostat is set to 77 degrees, but the room temperature is a cozy 80-something.
And when I read Petula Dvorak arguing that air conditioning is a tool of sexism because “all these women [are freezing] who actually dress for the season — linens, sundresses, flowy silk shirts, short-sleeve tops — changing their wardrobes to fit the sweltering temperatures around them. … And then there are the men, stalwart in their business armor, manipulating their environment for their own comfort, heaven forbid they make any adjustments in what they wear,” mostly I want to ask her if she’s read the dress codes for most professional offices. In my office, women can wear sleeveless tops and open-toed shoes in the summer. Men have to wear a jacket and tie. Air conditioning isn’t sexist. Modern dress codes very well might be.
But arguments based on nostalgia or gender are mostly easily dismissed. Moral arguments, like those made by Pope Francis or by those who are concerned about the environmental and energy impact of air conditioning, are more serious and require real attention.
Is it immoral to use air conditioning?
Pope Francis certainly suggests it is. And the article in the Washington Post that compares US and European air conditioning use agrees, suggesting that the United States prefers the short-term benefits of air conditioning over the long-term dangers of potential global warming — and that our air conditioning use “will make it harder for the US to ask other countries to continue to abstain from using it to save energy.” We are meant to be deeply concerned about the global environmental impact as countries like India, Indonesia, and Brazil become wealthy enough to afford widespread air conditioning. We are meant to set a good example.
But two months before the Washington Post worried that the United States has made it difficult to persuade India not to use air conditioning, 2,500 Indians died in one of the worst heat waves in the country’s history. This June, 780 people died in a four-day heat wave in Karachi, Pakistan. And in 2003, a heat wave that spanned Europe killed 70,000. Meanwhile, in the United States, heat causes an average of only 618 deaths per year, and the more than 5,000 North American deaths in the un-air-conditioned days of 1936 remain a grim outlier.
Air conditioning is not immoral. Possessing a technology that can prevent mortality numbers like these and not using it? That’s immoral.
Air conditioning is, for most of us, a small summertime luxury. For others, it is a life-saving necessity. I am sure that it has environmental effects. Benefits always have costs, and there’s no such thing as a free climate-controlled lunch. But rather than addressing those costs by trying to limit the use of air conditioning and by insisting that developing nations not use the technologies that rocketed the developed world to success, perhaps we should be focusing on innovating new kinds of air conditioning that can keep us cool at a lesser cost.
I bet the kids who will invent that technology have already been born. I pray that they do not die in a heat wave before they can share it with us.
Sarah Skwire is a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis.
The “Green” Pope Francis seems to be a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to the Catholic Church’s investment in fossil fuels. His push to impact climate change appears to apply to everyone but the Catholic Church.
Richard Valdmanis from Reuters reports:
[S]ome of the largest American Catholic organizations have millions of dollars invested in energy companies, from hydraulic fracturing firms to oil sands producers, according to their own disclosures, through many portfolios intended to fund church operations and pay clergy salaries.
This discrepancy between the church’s leadership and its financial activities in the United States has prompted at least one significant review of investments. The Archdiocese of Chicago, America’s third largest by Catholic population, told Reuters it will reexamine its more than $100 million worth of fossil fuel investments.
“We are beginning to evaluate the implications of the encyclical across multiple areas, including investments and also including areas such as energy usage and building materials,” Betsy Bohlen, chief operating officer for the Archdiocese, said in an email.
[ … ]
Dioceses covering Boston, Rockville Centre on Long Island, Baltimore, Toledo, and much of Minnesota have all reported millions of dollars in holdings in oil and gas stocks in recent years, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.
The holdings tend to make up between 5 and 10 percent of the dioceses’ overall equities investments, similar to the 7.1 percent weighting of energy companies on the S&P 500 index, according to the documents.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ guidelines on ethical investing warn Catholics and Catholic institutions against investing in companies related to abortion, contraception, pornography, tobacco, and war, but do not suggest avoiding energy stocks.
Will all Catholic churches, schools, hospitals and related organizations stop using fossil fuels to save the planet?
It would seem that Pope Francis has yet to walk the walk but he is good at talking the talk. To meet Pope Francis’ encyclical it would be necessary to, as Jesus did, shed all the trapping of fossil fuels.
I wonder if fossil fuels were used to cook the last supper?
The people who chose to build their town on an island are now whining that the bad old USA needs to save them as the island is supposedly sinking.
News flash! Islands submerge and often reappear again over centuries the world over as part of the dynamism that is our planet.
Back in the ’70’s I wrote a report about islands off the coast of Virginia that had whole towns on them (hotels, schools, cemeteries) that began to be uninhabitable by the early 1900’s as they were buffeted by major east coast storms (before cars were widely used! before global warming!). The people simply recognized that it would be foolish to stay, and moved inland. They didn’t cry out to the federal government to save them from their original choice.
Now we have these whiny Alaskan islanders who wonder if the federal government will leave them there to die!
Alaska’s Kivalina Island.
Here is the news at HNGN:
Kivalina is located on a very thin barrier reef island between the Chukchi Sea and the Kivalina Lagoon, in the northwest of Alaska, above the Arctic Circle. And it may not be there in a decade, thanks to climate change.
In approximately 10 years, the village of Kivalina in northwestern Alaska could be submerged, giving its approximately 400 residents the ubiquitous honor of becoming the first climate change refugees of America, so much so that the U.S. government says it may be too dangerous to live there.
Waahhhh! Is the U.S. government going to leave us here to die?
“If we’re still here in 10 years time we either wait for the flood and die, or just walk away and go someplace else. The U.S. government imposed this Western lifestyle on us, gave us their burdens and now they expect us to pick everything up and move it ourselves. What kind of government does that?” Swan (a local elected official) asked while speaking to the BBC.
You pick it up and move it yourself! And, maybe whaling is going the way of the buggy whip anyway!
One more case in the PR campaign that is building for governments (the US taxpayer mostly!) to take care of ‘helpless’ people worldwide while they bash America!
See our category—Climate refugees for more on this newest excuse for the redistribution of wealth and people.
RELATED ARTICLE: Idaho legislator calls for more transparency by resettlement agency in Twin Falls
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of two teenagers in Kivalina, Alaska, playing near a skinned polar bear.
