"...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?

[frankstien]

Climate change scare stories reach the point of psychological TERRORISM… while scientists blame the fear on the “climate crisis”

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-05-...source=EOACLK#


(Natural News) The corporate media cartels have become hubs of hatred and “journo-terrorism” that targets the psyche of the masses. The quack science hoax of so-called “climate change” is used to terrorize the public into believing that their planet will somehow be destroyed by carbon dioxide — the very molecule that has been rapidly re-greening the Earth over the past four decades, according to NASA.

Now, a new round of “science” has been studying the mental stress of the victims of this psychological terrorism pushed by the dishonest media, and they’ve reached an even more bizarre conclusion. Scientists now claim that climate change is causing “mental anguish” among humans. Seriously.

Of course, the real source of the mental anguish is the lies and panic propaganda of the corporate media and the pathetic scientific establishment which has figured out that if you want more government grant money, you have to conduct “research” that identifies some new crisis to be blamed on climate change. In fact, the very phrase “climate change” isn’t scary enough yet to achieve the desired goal of mass mental terrorism, so media outlets around the world are now ordering their obedient writers to start using the phrase “climate crisis.”

And if you don’t believe there’s a “climate crisis,” then you will of course be banned from all online platforms, just like Apple recently banned Natural News, claiming our content failed to mirror the “scientific consensus” on topics like climate science.

Get more news like this without being censored: Get the Natural News app for your mobile devices. Enjoy uncensored news, lab test results, videos, podcasts and more. Bypass all the unfair censorship by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Get your daily news and videos directly from the source! Download here.

You are now required to panic… and if you don’t, you will be censored and de-platformed
And there you have it: All news outlets, researchers and individual voices are now required to panic over the climate, or you will be banned and silenced. This is what so-called “climate change” has come to: a dangerous CULT of quackery and left-wing lunacy. Like all cults, those who are deeply embedded in the cult demand that everyone else join their cult or be forever silenced.

The very same people who believe in a “climate crisis,” by the way, are the kind of people who cut off their own penis and scrotum using a scalpel in an effort to become a “nullo” — a gender-neutral, obedient “progressive” who exhibits no reproductive organs whatsoever. This, we are told, is the ultimately expression of tolerance and progress.

Or maybe, perhaps, all these lunatics are just f##king insane, and they spend their lives terrorizing each other over make-believe fear scenarios in order to achieve some illusion of self-importance as they desperately try to navigate a world that makes no sense to them because the rational portions of their brains have been short-circuited with fear, hatred and social engineering propaganda. The zombie apocalypse is here, and the zombies are the libtards who have proven themselves to be utterly incapable of independent thought.

If only they would all cut off their own balls, we could have this entire surge of lunacy self-eliminated in just one generation of “progressivism,” via the laws of natural selection.

The future of liberalism is a scarred, bloodied newborn baby and a Netflix special celebration of the “progressive” parents who slice apart their own child in the name of gender neutrality
Instead of free condoms and drug needles being handed out in liberal cities, perhaps it’s time to lobby city leaders to hand out free scalpels and ice packs so that obedient libtards can self-mutilate to the extent required to be sufficiently embraced by the Left Cult. If cutting off your penis and scrotum makes you a progressive, maybe “woke” women will start slicing off their own breasts soon, while being celebrated by The View for “casting aside the old biology of gender.”

Don’t cringe. This is exactly the kind of stupid, psycho s##t these people keep coming up with, even as they claim the world will end in 12 years if we don’t stop producing food through the use of diesel-powered tractors.

If you thought infanticide and the murder of post-birth babies was bad, just wait until some liberal lunatic decides to mutilate their newborn baby with a scalpel to make them “gender neutral” … followed by Good Morning America featuring the newly-mutilated baby as a “great symbol of progressivism” while GoFundMe raises a billion dollars for the parents, who are offered a Netflix deal for a documentary that highlights them as champions for human progress.

The future of liberalism isn’t a boot stamping on your head forever; it’s actually a screaming, bloodied, scarred baby that has been violently attacked and had its penis sliced off by “progressive” parents while obedient doctors watch and cheer in order to support political correctness and keep their jobs in hospitals that maim babies for profit while billing the federal government for “gender-restorative procedures” which are nothing more than horrific crimes committed against human babies that somehow survived the Left’s post-birth abortion procedures.

According to the Left, if you stab a newborn just a few times in the right places, it’s called “progressivism.” If you keep stabbing and murder the baby, it’s called “women’s health” (i.e. abortion).

You can’t make this up. You can’t even dream this up in a nightmare. Liberalism is beyond any nightmare the world has ever witnessed in human history. The Left Cult is a death cult, and they can’t wait to kill themselves and as many other people as possible as they take down humanity in the name of “environmental justice.

VIDEO here-- https://www.brighteon.com/6038976998001

[AutumnW]

Mental anguish over climate change? I have it. It's a rational emotional response. And what does your rant on abortion have to do with climate change? Would you mind staying on topic?

[AriG]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Mental anguish over climate change? I have it. It's a rational emotional response. And what does your rant on abortion have to do with climate change? Would you mind staying on topic?

Frankstien did not write those words. He posted the content of the link.

[Hervé]

...

... and check out this article (<---)

[frankstien]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Mental anguish over climate change? I have it. It's a rational emotional response. And what does your rant on abortion have to do with climate change? Would you mind staying on topic?

Suggest you read the article and watch the video. You will see it is definitely "on topic: Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?" - the article is about how they are using their invented Climate Change hysteria to justify more invented hysteria.

[onawah]

Mike Adams of Natural News has been known to go off the rails on occasion, exaggerating, dramatizing and sometimes stretching the truth, though on the whole, a lot of the news he shares is very relevant.
In this case, I think he's gotten hysterical.

[Whisper]

The climate warming bs..is of the table already..this is why they quickly changed it into "climate changing"....... Which is a word game. Planet earth always had climate changes and always will have.......

the CO2 production on earth is mainly caused by water and not by us. The oceans are producing Co2 sometimes more sometimes less...it is up to the activity of the sun.....more activity more Co2....aso.....





but surely whatever we do towards nature will have it effects somehow........................................... .................


The alternative energy producers we have today, are not always the perfect solutions also.



For example the ugly metal towers...called windmills....or wind turbines to produce electricity do not only ruin the natural view of the area where ever they put it up...

Those wind turbines often give a high sound while working, called ultrasound which is not very healthy to live close by. And those metal windmills kill many birds.......how come nobody seems to realize this?



https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2015...-can-harm-you/

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIYLA7n912o

So it is clear...you can not really compare those giant metall turbines to the good looking and harmless wood wind mills they have in the Netherlands.....

this so called modern ones..are harmful to us and towards the nature and wild life around them...

and I would not call this green energy at all.......

[Whisper]

Just was thinking about those birds killing metal towers....Why can`t the at least put some protection cover over it..for example like the Fan`s have one? Or something else..so the birds don't get killed by the rotating turbines.... Cant be so difficult to develope something better, than what they use now......



just an idea....

or maybe another possibilty to produce more clean electricity without to destroy more of nature, the natural view and animal wild life.....

I was thinking about our water pipes....where the water is running through all the time for us..to cook with, to run the washing machine, to take a shower..aso....

I am not a technican or developer.... but I was thinking of to put small turbines or wheels inside of our water pipes..to catch some of the water energy this way..to produce electricity....

the pipes are there....the water is running through it... Just another phantasy idea of mine..??.....If this would be possible it would not ruin more nature or harm anybody..... But like I said..it is just an idea and I dont really know if this is technical possible.... I have my dreams....

Whatsover...I am sure there are better ways we should go......

We should protect nature and it`s wild life...and stop creating more and more technology which harms it..... .

[Hervé]

...

Cross-posted from (here):

Scientists caught 'adjusting' sea level data to create false impression of rising oceans

Vick Batts News Target
Tue, 28 May 2019 09:44 UTC

A scientific paper published by a team of Australian researchers has revealed a startling find: Scientists at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) have been "adjusting" historical data regarding tide levels in the Indian Ocean. Their "highly questionable" activities have depicted rapidly rising seas - but the truth is that there is no reason to be alarmed at all. Scientists have found that sea levels are stable - and have been for the entirety of the 20th century.

To put it simply, these PSMSL "scientists" have been arbitrarily changing their data in order to create the illusion of a problem that doesn't actually exist.

According to the Australian research team, sea levels in the Indian ocean have remained stable for decades. Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier recently published their astounding research in the journal Earth Systems and Environment; their extensive research gives an in-depth look at how this massive deception was undertaken.

PSMSL "realigned" stable sea level trends
As the researchers report, there are multiple lines of evidence that show sea levels in the Indian Ocean are completely stable. Further, the scientific duo explains that the data-adjusters at PSMSL were taking "misaligned or incomplete" sea level data (which showed no rise in sea levels, or even decreasing sea levels) and "realigning" them.

As Parker and Ollier contend, "It is always highly questionable to shift data collected in the far past without any proven new supporting material." But what makes the PSMSL's data shifts even more questionable is the fact that older datasets were adjusted to look lower while all newer sets of sea level data were re-configured to appear higher. When these arbitrary adjustments are taken together, it creates the appearance of a significant and concerning rise in sea levels - one that is entirely artificial.

As reported:

The sea levels in India, including Mumbai, and in Karachi, Pakistan, have been recently analysed and discussed in Parker and Ollier (2015) and in Parker (2016). In both cases, it was shown that the latest positive trends in the PSMSL RLR [revised local reference, adjusted] data are only the result of arbitrary alignments, and alternative and more legitimate alignments reveal very stable sea-level conditions.

Further, the researchers state that there are even greater concerns regarding the PSMSL's so-called findings. They wrote:

What are more dangerous are the corrections recently introduced to the past to magnify the sea-level trend or the acceleration. As shown in the prior section, the adjustments introduced by PSMSL to make the RLR [revised local reference, or adjusted data] are arbitrary in Aden, Karachi, and Mumbai.

In one instance, Parker and Ollier referenced a 1991 study which showed that sea levels in Mumbai were falling by an average of 0.3 millimeters per year between the years of 1930 and 1980. The duo states that in PSMSL's latest report, they declare that sea levels in Mumbai were rising by 0.52 millimeters per year during the same time period.

In other words, PSMSL completely changed data collected decades ago to show an increase in sea levels, rather than the decrease that was actually reported at the time.

To sum it up, Ollier and Parker have found there is no reason to believe that sea levels are rising - and that PSMSL has been wantonly adjusting sea level data to create the appearance of a problem that doesn't actually exist.

Scientists use real data to show sea levels are stable
The Australian researchers declared in their paper, "Contrary to the adjusted data from tide gauges and the unreliable satellite altimeter data, properly examined data from tide gauges and other sources such as coastal morphology, stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, archaeological remains, and historical documentation indicate a lack of any alarming sea-level rise in recent decades for all the Indian Ocean."

In other words, a non-biased look at the original data from the tide gauges indicates that there is nothing to be worried about; current sea levels are well within "normal" ranges. In fact, the pair states in the conclusion that sea levels across multiple sites of the Indian Ocean have been stable for "all of the 20th century."

The pair of scientists also state in their paper that all key data collection points have shown a sea level rise of 0.0 millimeters for at least the last 50 years - which is an indicator of stability in ocean levels.

A recent report by NASA even showed that sea levels are actually taking a downward turn for the last few years - findings that lie in stark contrast to PSMSL's alarmist report on sea level data.

There has been much controversy and fanfare over the alleged threat of rising sea levels, but it seems that much of this excitement is based on fiction rather than reality.

Ultimately, Parker and Ollier concluded that sea levels are, and have been, quite stable during the past century.


Related:

• The Dark Story Behind 'Man-Made Global Warming', Those Who Created it - And Why

• Global warming is a hoax pushed by corrupt scientists: The 'greatest scam in history' - Greenpeace founder

[Hervé]

Now , for the contorted, convoluted Machiavellian scam:


The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan

Executive Summary

By The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute Global Research
May 28, 2019

The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute 1 December 2016

“Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. … In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (excerpt from Report)

The following text is the Executive Summary of a full length report by The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute published in 2016.

This informative report is brought to the attention of Global Research readers. The CRG does not necessarily endorse the contents of this report. What is important to emphasize is the role of the Rockefeller family –which historically were the architects of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as financing the NGOs involved in grassroots activism.

Read full report here.

***

The Rockefellers are arguably the wealthiest and most powerful family in the history of the United States. For more than 100 years, they have shaped and directed America’s economic, financial, political, and public policy while simultaneously amassing one of the largest family empires in the modern era.

Most Americans hold the billionaire philanthropists in high esteem, associating the Rockefeller name with “oil” and “capitalism.” In reality, the Rockefellers are intent on controlling nearly every major institution in America, using philanthropy as a means of increasing their influence on the world stage under the guise of advancing various social causes. Their avid opposition to the very fossil fuel industry that made John D. Rockefeller America’s first billionaire shows that the Rockefellers are not political ideologues. Instead, they are mere opportunists who support political agendas convenient to enhancing their leverage in the global arena.

Through the Rockefellers’ web of family foundations, universities, and institutions, as well as huge grants to other charities, they have gained unprecedented influence in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and the environment. Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing worlds’ natural resources.

Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing. Since the 1980s, their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming). Their crusade to collapse the fossil fuel industry in favor of renewable energy is well-documented, from their involvement in major global climate treaties and organizations – the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1992 to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol – to spending hundreds of millions to advance the renewable energy industry. Through their Sustainable Development Program, the Rockefellers continue to promote their self-serving “clean energy” policies throughout both the federal government and general public.

As the most prolific benefactors of the climate activist movement, the Rockefellers’ impact on the energy industry sees no bounds, as the family’s objectives permeate throughout federal and state energy policy, as well as international social engineering globalist compacts such as Agenda 21. With the immeasurable influence that accompanies mass wealth and power, the Rockefeller empire has proven an effective puppeteer of advancing its main objective: the destruction of the fossil fuel industry to increase its clout over the energy sector.

On November 5, 2015, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (above) launched an unprecedented investigation into ExxonMobil to determine if the company had defrauded investors by not disclosing the risks that climate change could have on its business.1 This occurred only weeks after the Columbia Journalism School’s (CJS) Energy and Environment Reporting Fellowship accused Exxon of misleading the public through its Los Angeles Times article, “How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change.”2

Despite the raging debate over the impact of man-made climate change, left-leaning politicians, lobbyists, and most significantly, billionaires, have declared it settled science, using the issue as a means of gaining control over the energy arena. Research shows that Eric Schneiderman’s legal investigation, as well as Columbia Journalism’s negative portrayal of ExxonMobil were neither objective nor independent. In fact, substantial evidence leads to the premise that both Columbia Journalism School’s accusations against ExxonMobil and Eric Schneiderman’s legal investigation into the oil giant were not only financed, but orchestrated by the Rockefeller family.

Notably, the Rockefellers bankrolled the Columbia Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship Project’s demonization of the oil company.3 However, both Schneiderman’s investigation and Columbia Journalism School’s publications were years in the making.

The Rockefeller Family Fund hosted and led two closed door meetings with prominent climate activists – one in 2012 and one in January 2016. Uncovered emails show that the main issue at both gatherings was how to best take down the fossil fuel industry.4 Aside from key leaders of the Rockefellers’ many foundations, both summits included the major players in the climate movement such as: Matt Pawa (attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law), Sharon Eubanks (director of the Department of Justice’s tobacco litigation effort in the 1990’s and known anti Exxon activist), representatives of Greenpeace, and Carroll Moffit of the Climate Accountability Institute.5 During both summits, Eric Schneiderman was considered the possible catalyst to spearhead the legal investigation, while ExxonMobil was repeatedly mentioned as the possible target.

Schneiderman’s fervent outspokenness against “climate deniers,” and public call to enact policies conducive to increasing renewable energy use made him a perfect and willing candidate.6 When announcing his crusade against Exxon, Schneiderman cited studies from the Rockefeller funded outlets Inside Climate News and Columbia Journalism School’s Exxon reports.7 Revealingly, numerous members of the Rockefeller family had long urged Schneiderman to investigate the oil company.

However, as evidenced in the Rockefeller-hosted La Jolla 2012 meeting report, the family and climate activists needed a well-known, respected, and objectively perceived media outlet to push the public narrative. Although not disclosed in the summit’s documentation, it appears they found one in the Columbia Journalism School. While arguably the most prestigious journalism school in the country, the Columbia Journalism School is not only a beneficiary of millions in Rockefeller donations, it is composed, almost entirely, of professors closely affiliated with the green movement.

In 2013, a year after the plan was crafted, climate alarmist and author of a well-known book condemning ExxonMobil, Steve Coll, was appointed Dean of the Columbia Journalism School.

Not surprisingly, Coll spearheaded the school’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship’s project that smeared Exxon. Coll is closely tied to the Rockefellers, as he previously chaired the climate change proponent New America Foundation, which received significant funding from the family. These revelations suggest that the Rockefellers used their influence over both the Columbia Journalism School and Steve Coll to put Coll in place as Dean, providing him the platform to do what he had done voluntarily and enthusiastically once before: publically and thoroughly castigate ExxonMobil.

Along with Coll, as a bastion of climate activists, the Columbia Journalism School was likely an eager participant in the plot to smear Exxon. At least seven CJS professors are directly connected to green activist billionaire George Soros, receiving either awards or significant amounts of money from the socialist philanthropist. Moreover, several CJS alumni board members are prominent climate change advocates, including Scott Dodd, and Thomas Watkins.

This report proposes that the assault on ExxonMobil was neither the idea of Eric Schneiderman, nor the Columbia Journalism School. Instead, the Rockefellers, with the help of other billionaires and prominent climate activists, carefully orchestrated both the legal and media investigations into ExxonMobil in an effort to achieve their goal of collapsing the fossil fuel industry to gain control over the energy sector.

Read full report here.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes:

1 Chris Mooney, “New York is investigating Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public about climate change,” The Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2015, Accessed April 16, 2016.

2 Katie Jennings, Dino Grandoni and Susanne Rust, “How Exxon Went from leader to skeptic on climate change,”Los Angeles Times, Oct. 23, 2015, Accessed April 16, 2016.

3 Susanne Rust, “The Energy and Environment Reporting Fellowship,” Columbia Journalism School website,Columbia Journalism School, Accessed April 16, 2016.

4 Alana Goodman, “Memo Shows Secret Coordination Effort Against ExxonMobil by Climate Activists, Rockefeller Fund,” The Washington Free Beacon, April 14, 2016, Accessed April 28, 2016.

5 Katie Brown, “Wait Till You See These Secret Memos Laying Out Activists’ Plans to Target Exxon,” Energy InDepth, April 15, 2016, Accessed April 29, 2016.

6 “Schneiderman Delivers Speech on #Climate2014: “It’s Time for Action on Climate Change,” YouTube, Sep. 22,2014, Accessed April 20 2016.

7 Jon Entine, “How the Columbia Journalism School Smeared Exxon,” New York Post, March 1, 2016, Accessed April 21, 2016.

Related:

• In Midst of ExxonMobil Climate Denial Scandal, Company Hiring Climate Change Researcher

The original source of this article is The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute
Copyright © The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, 2019

====================================

Always the same: eliminate the competition via false flags (ExxonMobil)...

My guess, is that they found a way to stick a meter onto free energy devices... beside squeezing everyone dry with green taxes... sick!

[frankstien]

[Hervé]

National Geographic article from 1967 - Sunspots control Earth's climate, not CO2

The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
Fri, 31 May 2019 00:01 UTC

Some people speculate that increasing smog will cause our atmosphere to capture and retain more solar heat, gradually melting the world's icecaps. But I believe smog and other factors, such as changing carbon dioxide content and volcanic dust, will prove only marginal in their effects on our climatic future.

Dr. Hurd C. Willett, Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, suggests the answer. Dr. Willett, one of our staff affiliates this year, has shown us how cyclic changes in the climate closely parallel the cyclic changes in sunspot activity-the manifestations of powerful electrical energy discharges from the sun.* We now feel confident that our investigations here back up the solar-climate theory of weather cycles. Sunspots have been diligently recorded for well over 200 years. We find that glacier fluctuations over these past two centuries show a tantalizing correlation, taking into account the glaciers' flow lag, with sun storms and temperature trends.

The National Geographic Archive | February 1967 | page 1

==========================================

Gives one an idea of the power of concerted, orchestrated unfounded propaganda against real, genuine and factual scientific research and results... legislations passed, taxes levied, sanctions liberally distributed, etc... sigh...

[frankstien]

Right on Hervé!

[Hervé]

25 simple bullet points proving CO2 does not cause global warming: by a geologist for a change

June 9, 2019 by Robert

‘Bullet points’ proving CO2’s innocence.

Geologists know climate change unrelated to atmospheric CO2 occurred throughout Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. Yet the IPCC has no geologists among the hundreds of appointed authors of its Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 and its Sixth Report due in 2022. Thus IPCC incredibly lacks both geological input and long-term perspective.
– Geologist Dr. Roger Higgs

___________________


25 simple bullet points proving CO2 does not cause global warming: by a geologist for a change

Dr Roger Higgs,
Geoclastica Ltd, Technical Note 2019-11,
6th April 2019, on ResearchGate

We urgently need to expose the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy being forced upon your children, grandchildren, nephews and nieces by schools, universities, governments and mainstream media worldwide, and to denounce it in scrupulously truthful terms easily understood by the public, including those youngsters themselves.
Here are the 25 bullet points proving CO2’s innocence:

1) Geologists know climate change unrelated to atmospheric CO2 occurred throughout Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. Yet the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no geologists among the hundreds of appointed authors of its Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 and its Sixth Report due in 2022 (see my Technical Note 2019-10). Thus IPCC incredibly lacks both geological input and long-term perspective.

2) IPCC’s very existence relies on public belief in manmade or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) by CO2 emissions. Moreover its appointed authors, mostly government and university researchers, are nearly all biased by strong vested interests in AGW, i.e. reputations (publications, lectures) & continuance of salaries & research grants. Similarly, major universities have abandoned their scientific impartiality & integrity by hosting research institutes mandated to confirm & act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall Centre.

3) The often-repeated ‘97% consensus among scientists that global warming is man’s fault’ (CO2 emissions) is untrue. It refers in fact to surveys of just a relatively small group of ‘climate scientists’ (a fairly new type of scientist, with strong incentives for bias; see Bullets 2 & 15), moreover only those who are ‘actively publishing’.

4) ‘Climate change denier’ & ‘global warming denier’ are despicable & dishonest terms for ‘AGW doubters’. No educated person disputes global warming, as thermometers measured 1°C rise from 1850 to 2016 (with pauses).

5) The ‘Greenhouse Hypothesis’, on which IPCC’s belief in AGW is based, is that atmospheric gases trap heat. But this old (19th century) notion is merely an idea, not a hypothesis, because it is untestable, impossible to prove in a laboratory as no experimental container can imitate Earth’s uncontained, well-mixed atmosphere.

6) IPCC computer models are so full of assumptions as to be extremely unreliable, e.g. forecast warming for 1995 to 2015 turned out to be 2-3 times too high ! A likely reason is that the greenhouse idea is nonsense, as explained in recent publications by several scientists. See Bullet 19 for an equally drastic failure of IPCC models. See also https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-bl...-of-the-water/ https://principia-scientific.org/r-i-...ory-1980-2018/

7) For about 75% of the last 550 million years, CO2 was 2 to 15 times higher than now. Evolution flourished, CO2 enabling plant photosynthesis, the basis of all life. Extinction events due to overheating by CO2 are unknown.

8) Through the last 12,000 years (our current Holocene interglacial period), CO2 was a mere 250 to 290 ppm (parts per million), near plant-starvation level, until about 1850 when industrial CO2 emissions began, making CO2 climb steeply. Nevertheless CO2 today it is still only 412ppm, i.e. under half of one-tenth of 1% of our atmosphere

9) Until man began adding CO2 about 1850, warming (determined from ‘proxies’ like tree rings) since the 1600AD Little Ice Age peak was accompanied by slowly rising CO2 (measured in ice cores). A simple explanation is CO2 release by ocean water, whose CO2-holding capacity decreases upon warming.

10) Supporting this sign that CO2 is a consequence, not cause, of global warming, a published study of 1980-2011 measurements showed that changes in warming rate precede changes in CO2’s growth rate, by about a year.

11) Since the 1850 start of man’s additions, CO2’s rise has generally accelerated, without reversals. In stark contrast, the post-1850 to present-day continuance of warming out of the Little Ice Age was interrupted by frequent small coolings of 1-3 years (some relatable to ‘volcanic winters’), plus two 30-year coolings (1878 to 1910, 1944 to 1976), and the famous 1998 to 2013 ‘global-warming pause’ or ‘hiatus’ (Wiki).

12) This unsteady modern warming instead resembles the unsteady rise of the sun’s magnetic output from 1901 toward a rare solar ‘Grand Maximum’ peaking in 1991, the first in 1700 years !

13) Modern warming reached a peak in February 2016. Since then, Earth has cooled for 3 years (now April 2019).

14) The ‘Svensmark Theory’ says increased solar magnetic flux warms Earth by deflecting cosmic rays, thus reducing cloudiness, allowing more of the sun’s warmth to heat the land and ocean instead of being reflected. In support, a NASA study of satellite data spanning 32 years (1979-2011) showed decreasing cloud cover.

15) Vociferous IPCC-involved climate scientist Dr Stefan Rahmstorf (Wiki) of the German government’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, recipient of a US$1 million personal research grant from a private foundation, wrongly said in his 2008 article ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’: “there is no viable alternative … [to CO2 as driver of modern warming from 1940 to 2005 because] … different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase” during that period. Yet nine years earlier, in 1999, famous physicist Dr Michael Lockwood (Wiki; FRS) wrote, in ‘A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field During the Past 100 Years’, published in prestigious Nature journal: “the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964” and 2.3 since 1901 !! See for yourselves the striking overall 1964-91 climb in solar-magnetic output, recorded by the strong overall fall in detected neutrons (proportional to cosmic rays), in graph 3 here … https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi

16) Lockwood showed averaged solar magnetic flux increased 230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled ! The final peak value was 5 times the starting minimum value ! Bullets 17 & 18 likewise back Svensmark’s theory…

17) … after the previous solar Grand Maximum (4th century, long before industrial CO2), in the next decades Earth warmed to near or above today’s temperature. Then ‘sawtooth’ cooling proceeded, through the Dark Ages and ‘Medieval Warm Period’, into the Little Ice Age, paralleling a 1,000-year unsteady solar decline; and …

18) … before that, between 8000 and 2000BC, Earth was occasionally warmer than today for hundreds if not thousands of years, as shown by tree rings, shrunken glaciers, etc.. Then unsteady cooling from 3000BC into the Little Ice Age paralleled unsteady solar decline following the Holocene’s ‘super-Grand’ Maximum near 3000BC.

19) This 4,500-year cooling contradicts IPCC computer models that instead predict warming by the simultaneous (slow) rise in CO2. This is the ‘The Holocene Temperature Conundrum’ of Liu et al. (2014). See also Bullet 6.

20) Embarrassingly for AGW promoters, the 8000-2000BC warm interval (Bullet 18) was already, ironically, named the ‘Holocene Climatic Optimum’, before today’s CO2/AGW hysteria began. The warmth probably benefitted human social development. Indeed, it was cold episodes, bringing drought and famine, that ended civilisations.

Cross-correlating post-1880 graphs of solar-magnetic flux versus Earth’s temperature suggests a 25-year timelag, such that the 2016 peak temperature corresponds to the 1991 solar peak. The lag is probably due to the ocean’s high thermal inertia due to its enormous volume and high heat capacity, hence slow response to warming.

22) IPCC, ignoring the possibility of such a time-lag, claims that simultaneous global warming (until 2016) and solar weakening (since 1991) must mean that warming is driven by CO2 !

23) The last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago was warmer than our Holocene interglacial. Humans and polar bears survived ! CO2 was then about 275ppm, i.e. lower than now (Bullet 8).

24) The simultaneous rise of temperature & CO2 is a ‘spurious correlation’. Warming’s real cause was a solar build-up to a rare Grand Maximum, which man’s industrialisation accompanied by chance. So IPCC demonising CO2 as a ‘pollutant’ is a colossal blunder, costing trillions of dollars in needless & ineffectual efforts to reduce it.

25) Global cooling now in progress since February 2016 can be predicted to last at least 28 years (i.e. to 2044), matching the sun’s 28-year decline from 1991 to today, and allowing for the 25-year time-lag (Bullet 21). Inescapable conclusion: IPCC is wrong − the sun, not CO2, drove modern global warming.

Here’s some information about Dr. Higgs
http://www.geoclastica.com/BudeGeoWalks.htm

Thanks to Dr Roger Higgs for this link

Contact rogerhiggs@hotmail.com for literature sources for any of the aforementioned ‘Inconvenient Facts’

[kfm27917]

Has anybody done an analysis of what amount of CO2 the military forces of the major powers contribute to total emissions ?

[Hervé]

Science's untold scandal: The lockstep march of professional societies to promote the climate change scare

Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr PJ Media
Fri, 24 May 2019 00:01 UTC

© Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

When we started our careers, it was considered an honor to be a member of professional societies that helped practitioners keep up with the latest developments in their fields through relevant meetings and publications. Senior author Dr. Jay Lehr had the privilege of leading one of these societies long ago.

But things are different now. Whether it be chemistry, physics, geology or engineering, many of the world's primary professional societies have changed from being paragons of technical virtue to opportunistic groups focused on maximizing their members' financial gains in support of the climate scare, the world's greatest science fraud. In particular, they continue to promote the groundless hypothesis that carbon dioxide emitted as a result of mankind's use of fossil fuels is leading to environmental catastrophe. You have been hearing about it for the past decade and more, with 21 candidates for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in the next election promoting some form of a Green New Deal - a plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and replace them with wind and solar power thereby returning society to the lifestyle of the 1880s.

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, wrote in 1994 that radical greens had taken over the organization after the fall of the Berlin Wall, leaving him no choice but to resign. The takeover of environmental institutions by extremists is now almost complete, the most important of which may be the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). President Donald Trump is aggressively trying to win back the EPA in the best interests of the nation, but it is an uphill battle as the climate cult has also taken control of academia, political parties, and governments themselves.

An example of how professional societies have apparently been hijacked by extremists concerns the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, Canada (APEGA). Allan MacRae, a prominent long-time member of APEGA, was named to receive its most distinguished lifetime achievement award in 2019. Then APEGA staff learned that MacRae had written publicly about the damage done to humanity and the environment by radical greens. APEGA leadership strongly condemned his comments and his award was withdrawn. It led MacRae to write "Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age," which explains the APEGA award withdrawal and to support his contention that radical greens have done enormous harm to humanity and the environment with their destructive, misguided policies. MacRae writes,

"APEGA refused to discuss the evidence, and baselessly claimed the moral high ground."

One commenter responding to MacRae's essay posed a question, the answer to which tells an important story: "How did the Greens get control of APEGA?" Another commenter answered:

The same way they have taken over every other professional organization. The actual members are too busy building their careers and actually working in the field to spend much time worrying about the day to day operation of the organization. As a result, they are taken over by lawyers and activists whose interest is in pushing their own agenda, not advancing science for humanity.

Another reader commented:

"The long march through the Institutions" as proposed by the Frankfurt school back in the 1930s was launched knowing it would be a generations long policy. Here we are three generations on and they have now taken control of all the western institutions as planned. The socialists do not stop just because their prime construct, the USSR failed in 1990. They regard that failure as simply work in progress. The climate as a tool which can never be tamed, was a genuine piece of strategic genius by the COGS (constantly offended green socialists). They will not stop. The destruction of humanity is too big a prize, they view this activity as pressing the Earth's reset button."

The same thing is happening in the United States, where feathers were really ruffled at the American Physical Society (APS) when Dr. Hal Lewis, emeritus professor of Physics at the University of California, sent his resignation letter to the Society after being a member for 67 years. In his letter, he described the joy of working with brilliant physicists for decades, when no one expected to get rich in this field. Lewis explained how studies done within the society had effective oversight that enabled members to stake their reputations on the work of the organization. He said that has all now changed. Open dialogue has disappeared and all organization policies follow the new politics of the organization leadership rather than the membership. It is apparently focused on the money that accrues to the organization and its members by going along with popular concerns.

Lewis' letter can be found here. A telling quote from that letter follows:

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone that has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents which lay it bare.

Lewis went on to state that he recruited over 200 members of APS to oppose the new APS policy that fully supports the global warming fraud. Their request for a hearing on the issue was completely ignored.

On March 31, 2019, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) issued a press release announcing the launch of The Climate Solutions Community, a broad committee to identify viable solutions to mitigate, adapt, and become resilient to the effects of climate change. They totally buy into the dangerous man-made climate change hypothesis with no consideration of alternative points of view. AIChE's description of their efforts highlight the fact that employment can be gained for their members as a result of the climate scare.

The Geological Society of America (GSA) has fallen into the same trap. In April 2015, GSA issued a Position Statement asserting that:

Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species.

The GSA backs up the statement with vague evidence from paleoclimates and offers their full support for the reports of the widely discredited United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

As is evident from the process described on the GSA Position Statement FAQs web page, the full membership of GSA is not polled after the development of Position Statements. Consequently, it is unknown what fraction of the membership actually support the final statement. However, clearly, GSA leadership recognize that such a position offers employment to many of their members trained in geology.

The lockstep march of professional societies in support of climate alarmism has been going on for years. For example, fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) and a leading Canadian energy expert, the late "Archie" Robertson of Deep River, Ontario, explained in the April 28, 2006, edition of the National Post what happened in Canada:

To claim that the IPCC-2001 assessment was "supported by the Royal Society of Canada" is stretching the truth. Prior to last year's Montreal conference, the president of the Royal Society of London, whose manner of promoting Kyoto has been criticized, drafted a resolution in favour and circulated it to other academies of science inviting co-signing. The Canadian Academy of Science is one of three academies within the Royal Society of Canada (the other are from the humanities). The president of the RSC, not a member of the Academy of Science, received the invitation. He considered it consistent with the position of the great majority of scientists, as repeatedly but erroneously claimed by Kyoto proponents, and so signed it. The resolution was not referred to the Academy of Science for comment, not even to its council or president (I learned this when, as a member of the Academy of Science, I inquired into the basis for the RSC supporting the resolution).

A similar episode happened in the United States and Russia concerning The Royal Society initiative. Pronouncements from other science bodies are often just the opinions of the groups' executives or committees specifically appointed by the executive. The rank and file scientist members are rarely consulted at all.

Past IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explained the problems with a previous National Academy of Sciences report here and concluded: "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."

All of this seriously damages the image of these once-respected professional societies in the eyes of both the public and the membership.

The climate cult that has taken over the environmental movement has never been about the environment. It has always been a mechanism to advance socialism, grow government, reduce individual rights, reduce human population, and ignore the human suffering and environmental damage their policies cause. Activists promoting this anti-human, anti-environment agenda appear to suffer emotional and psychological problems which they seem to deal with by attempting to make others miserable.

On April 27, 1961, at a speech in New York City, President John F. Kennedy said:

We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence - on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Those words describe socialism, a system sold as Utopia. It appears that a yearning for Utopia never dies, because it springs from innate spiritual qualities of humanity. But as we have seen in every instance of national-scale socialist "Utopias" such as Cuba, China, Russia, and Venezuela, the result is inevitably suffering, scarcity, environmental degradation, oppression, and death. Truth, reason, and logic are the first values sacrificed along the way. Professional Societies must stop supporting it.

__________________________________________________ ____________

Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Analyst with of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Tom Harris is Executive Director of ICSC.

Related:

• Green New Deal is a power grab attempt and would have 'No Effect' on climate change - Study

• Teenage climate-change protestors have no idea what they're protesting

• Youth Strike Movement For Climate Change is an Immensely Deceptive Globalist Propaganda Campaign

• How Belgian kids protesting 'climate change' turned me into a climate skeptic

• UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference in Poland tries to ram through sweeping global policy

• Erroneous climate change study reported far and wide, corrections few and far between

[Richard S.]

Well, well, well...

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finni...dence-warming/

The studies:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0703121407.htm

I wish for truth to be first and hopefully, it would prevail when people think...

[Clear Light]

Oh, for information, ZH also covered it [2] in their recent article : Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

And, perhaps of interest, the following is a selection of Avalon threads that also refer to the "Svensmark Effect" :

• Geomagnetic Reversals and Ice Ages [1]
• Science is clear: climate change not causing extreme weather
• "...Climate Change..." (AKA "Global Warming")... is it a scam?
• The Arctic is melting, the Antarctic is freezing. What does this mean?
• The year without summer
• Mapping More Than a Century of Major Earthquakes Around the World
• Sun Stuff: What's up!
• Al Gore discusses global warming with Ellen DeGeneres
• Plain & Simple Truth
• Alan Jones: The 'Economic Strength' of Australia is being TRASHED by Carbon Tax..
• NASA Hiding Approaching Doomsday Space Event

Now relatively speaking, I'd say it does seem apparent that the amount of low-level "cloud cover", at least here in the UK (specifically the Midlands), continues to increase (volumetrically ?) year-on-year and even at the "height of summer" the forecast is predicting Cloud Cloud Cloud and yet more Cloud ... but is this actually because of the influence of the Solar Minimum ?

Nevertheless, as with all things, I suppose "time will tell" eh ?

. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .

[1] Started just 4 days before this one !

[2] Please see the immediately preceding post to this thread by "Richard S" that this post was initially made in response to (FROM his now-merged thread entitled "Finnish study finds practically no evidence for man made climate change" ! )

[Sunny-side-up]

Is it man made, is it a scam?

I think it has been abused by money makers yes, so scam to that level.

But main reason behind it being, if we look at it as man made, well gives hope, guy's we can mend this.
If every one realised it's an ongoing solar system wide condition, one that we can't stop, well?

[Hervé]

Exposing the climate-change scare for what it is

by Robert
August 7, 2019

Have you ever seen these charts? You haven’t seen them, because they expose the climate-change scare for what it is. As far as I’m concerned it is a giant fraud.

The red circle at the far right is the claimed AGW scare.

Thanks to Burt Rutan for this graph (Yes, that Burt Rutan.) (click on picture to view a larger one)

Richard B. Alley, who created this graph, is an American geologist and Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. He has authored more than 240 refereed scientific publications about the relationships between Earth’s cryosphere and global climate change,[5] and is recognized by the Institute for Scientific Information as a “highly cited researcher.