The Debate is Over

Debate is over? U.S. Climate Action Report from State Department: ‘Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced’

The Debate is Over - only in the minds of the misinformed who don’t read Scientific Journals.

In a 2015 editorial on the dire consequences of human-caused climate change, Marcia McNutt, editor of the journal Science, stated with conviction that “the time for debate has ended.”

But, but...     2016 Scientific Consensus: Climate Models Aren’t Working

770 papers questioning global warming ‘consensus’ since 2014

Already 240 Published Papers In 2016 Alone Show AGW ‘Consensus’ Is A Fantasy

So why won’t alarmists publicly debate?

EPA chief: ‘Get out of that telephone booth where…climate deniers hang out’

“And, guess what? It’s not when, it’s happening now. You can see it every single day. You just need to get out of that telephone booth where other climate deniers hang out and open your eyes and see what’s happening.”

When hasn’t the climate been changing? The climate changes continuously because it is cyclical. Ice Age - Interglacial - Ice Age - Interglacial - Ice Age - Interglacial etc.

But the changes that are taking place are not being made in accordance with the predictions of the CO2 centric climate models and that is the point that skeptics are trying to get you to see. If you can’t predict you can’t indict!

The abject failure of official global-warming predictions

There has always been extreme weather but even the IPCC realises that it is NOT increasing as CO2 rises. Here is what is going on Gina. Spend some time becoming familiar with how the planet is behaving. As CO2 rises GAIA surprises!

Neither sea level rise or extreme weather is getting worse as CO2 rises. Is this what you expect Gina? It is what Mother Nature is doing. We worry needlessly.  

2015 Updated NOAA Tide Gauge Data Shows No Coastal Sea Level Rise Acceleration

Neither Rising Sea Levels Nor Extreme Weather Getting Worse

Extreme Weather NOT More Frequent in Recent Times

Season Approaches: U.S. Hits Record 127 Months Since Major Hurricane Strike

Forty-five Years of Extremely Intense Worldwide Hurricane Data (25 January 2016)

NOAA: SO FAR ANOTHER BELOW-NORMAL TORNADO SEASON IN THE US     as of June 1

The Antarctic shows growing surface ice mass and growing sea ice contrary to Global Climate Model expectations. Would you expect this in a GLOBAL warming world?

NASA says Antarctic sea ice has INCREASED since 1970s

NASA shows mass ice gains in Antarctica – “A very large gain”

Antarctic Sea Ice Trends in a Supposedly Global Warming World (10 March 2016)

Precipitation shows a not show an increasing trend as would be expected if CO2 were driving our climate change.    

Evidence-Based Science: Study Determines Changes In Global Precipitation Minimal Over Last 150 Years

AS CO2 rises unabated in our atmosphere glaciers are not responding with faster retreat.

Analysis Finds No Correlation Between Glacier Melt And CO2, Melting Much Slower Today Than 1930s!

As CO2 rises aren’t we supposed to see a greater frequency of hot days? It has not been happening.

Frequency Of Hot Days In Sharp Decline In The US

The doubts about CO2 as the star of our climate drama are piling up.

Rapidly Ballooning Body Of Doubt …Over 500 Papers From Past 2 Years Cast Shadow Over „Consensus“ Climate Science!

The good news continues to shine. We are living in a GREENer and safer world.

The Unstoppable CO2-Induced Greening of the Earth Continues (26 April 2016)

Climate Chaos? UN Says Natural Disasters Caused 70% Fewer Deaths In 2015

Elevated CO2: A Key Driver of Global Greening Observations (30 June 2016)

The scientific literature is full of such studies. Perhaps you need to spend some time with your head in the Science Journals rather than mindlessly repeating your talking points. Everyone agrees the climate is changing. That DOES NOT MEAN that CO2 is the cause. Separate question.

Gina, IS your staff shielding you from reality? .

SCIENCE tells us that the current concentration of CO2  in our atmosphere is 400 parts per million (ppm). SCIENCE tells us that over the last 600 million years CO2 has nested in our atmosphere in concentrations 10 to 20 times our contemporary 400 ppm. There was NO TIPPING POINT, NO RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING. We are here. This fact alone ought to quell the fears of a CO2 guided apocalypse. CO2 had its opportunity over many millions of years to trap heat and toast our planet but took a pass. Did CO2 fail its climate driving test?

SCIENCE tells us that there were many periods in pre-industrial times when temperatures exceeded or equalled those we experience today. Over the last 400,000 years three of the last 4 interglacials, the Holocene Climate Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period all experienced warmth equal to or greater than our own. Since we are told by climate gurus like Al Gore that pre-industrial CO2 levels remained stable for 800,000 years those periods of warmth could not have been a result of changes in CO2 concentration. Does this not imply that the climate changes independently of the amount of CO2 in the air? Does this make Mother Nature a Man Made Climate Change DENIER?

In a 2013 interview in USA Today a NOAA spokesperson said the following.

The last time the worldwide carbon level probably hit 400 ppm was about 2 million years ago, said Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That was during the Pleistocene Era. "It was much warmer than it is today," Tans said. "There were forests in Greenland. Sea level was higher, between 33 to 66 feet."

Would it be impertinent to ask why it isn’t that warm now that we have reached the auspicious milestone of 400 ppm in our air? Why aren’t sea levels 33 to 66 feet higher now like they were 2 million years ago?  Has CO2 lost its MoJo or does it suggest that CO2 has nothing to do with either temperature or sea level rise?

When you understand the above perhaps skeptics will allow you into the phone booth to continue the fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way.

In our case the ‘S’ is for Skeptic.

Analysis: ‘Modern Science Refutes Global Warming Alarmism’ – ‘We are very close to being able to say…the debate is over and the alarmists have lost’        

Have a good day!

Book Bans are so Back in the Day

Book Bans are so back in the day but the repressive nature of the campaign against the emission of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels has been resurrected in Portland, Oregon where the green mantra has succeeded in limiting science textbooks to those which support the elitist view of climate change.

Watch: Morano on Fox News in heated climate debate over schools banning books doubting ‘global warming’        

Warmist Taryn Rosenkranz Deomcrat Strategist: 'When it comes down to it, much like smoking causes cancer, we know carbon emissions causes climate change. We need to make sure that our students know the facts about what they can do to help.'

Marc Morano: 'Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that is essential for life on Earth and you are demonizing it as tobacco, as some kind of cancer causing gas-- it's absurd. The idea that these kids cannot be told that there is an alternative perspective, that the 97% claim of 'consensus' is pure myth and fabrication.'

Morano: 'This comes down to conformity must be enforced in the name of diversity. That is what they are doing here, they cannot allow dissent and its(sic) very sad for kids.'

Ms Rosenkranz wants students to focus on solutions rather than investigate the basis for the issue in the first place. It makes one wonder if Portland allows teachers to cover photosynthesis which would portray the hated carbon dioxide(CO2) in a rather favorable light. CO2 is plant fertilizer and an input to photosynthesis which allows plants to provide us with fruits, nuts, vegetables, pretty flowers and wood. If you need food and shelter does this not make the social BENEFITS of carbon dioxide PRICELESS?

Her subtle reference to ‘smoking causes cancer’ attempts to establish in listener minds that denying ‘CO2 causes climate change’ is akin to tobacco companies denying that ‘tobacco causes cancer’. But the facts do NOT support the ‘CO2 drives catastrophic warming’ meme.

As CO2 has continued to rise unabated in our atmosphere temperatures have not pursued the path set out for them by the catastrophic scenarios coming out of global climate models. They expect much more warming than has actually occurred.

In fact, as CO2 has continued to rise unabated in our atmosphere the global mean temperature used as the barometer of disaster has slowed its rise to an insignificant degree.

The scientific literature is replete with studies that show extreme weather such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have not gotten more frequent or more intense with the rise in CO2. Isn’t that good news? Where is the parade?

Sea  levels which have been rising since the end of the last ice age show no sign of acceleration even as CO2 has continued to rise unabated in our atmosphere.

2015 Updated NOAA Tide Gauge Data Shows No Coastal Sea Level Rise Acceleration

No wonder I like reading the skeptic blogs. The news is so much better.

The facts, which are ignored by those with a vested economic or political interest in man made global warming, are an embarrassment to warmists and thus must be suppressed at all costs. Is reality banned from impressionable young minds in Portland a good way to teach them critical thinking skills? The adults vested in the CAGW meme do not care and this is shameful  Portland will produce sheep rather than foster independent thinkers.

Perhaps this quote from RJ Oppenheimer is relevant

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.”

Banning books in Portland is just one more way that warmists display the weakness of the case they champion. The truth does not need protection. Those whose case lacks substance will want to hide that fact from public scrutiny with book bans and suppression of free speech.

ALERT: Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

Is that up next for Portland?

Update: Calif. Senate backs away from bill criminalizing climate change doubt

If you need coercion to get your way you are a bully not a promoter of ethics or reason. People of weak character will display their authoritarian nature at the first sign of a challenge to their viewpoint. Their agenda is what is important to them and facts to support it are nice to have but not necessary. They are skilled in wielding tactics to get what they want. Facts are convenient but irrelevant to the activist. False theories are afraid of the light and must be kept in the dark. False theories need suppression of open inquiry.

Strongarm tactics chase the rationalist away and so skeptics of manmade global warming via the emission of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels are born.

The growth of CO2 in our atmosphere has been GREENing the Earth. Our fruits and veggies love the stuff. CO2 is GREEN. Don’t GREENies want a GREEN planet?

Trust but Verify

Trust but Verify

"The majority of people believe in things like science -- and scientists. And so when scientists tell us that the planet is getting warmer and we need to do something about it, the majority of people think that's a good idea, let's do something about that, because we don't want Manhattan to be underwater."

OBAMA’S UNDERWATER MANHATTAN DOESN’T COME FROM SCIENCE, BUT FROM SCIENCE FICTION

But, if the scientists are government employed perhaps we should ask and examine their evidence before we accept it. We should realize that they have an incentive to ‘advertise’ that things are worse than they are in order to keep their funding up.

"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist

They are aware of the game that needs to be played. Given their monetary incentive to exaggerate their claims independent verification should be a routine check.

Trust but verify. Keeping everyone honest demonstrates responsible care for taxpayer funds.

“Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.[1]” Dwight D. Eisenhower exit speech

Enter CO2 centric climate change which has generated comments such as the following:

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official

"So the need for another economic model is urgent, and if the climate justice movement can show that responding to climate change is the best chance for a more just economic system..." Naomi Klein, anti-capitalism, pro-hysteria advocate of global warming

“Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong UN Backroom Boy

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change

And they are well on their way to accomplishing the transformation with the ultimate goal of global governance. Why Global Governance?

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time." Club of Rome

Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”

Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance: "The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."

Ominous for freedom lovers!

How will it work? Agenda 21 is to be the implementation mechanism.

"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level." ~from the UN Agenda 21

Every human action under inspection. Sounds like Big Brother doesn’t it? To the committed totalitarian 1984 is not a warning to be heeded but a blueprint to be followed.

Pinky: what are we going to do tonight Brain?

Brain: same thing we do every night Pinky. Try to take over the world.

And you thought they were just cartoon characters. Nope the have moved on from the Acme Company. Pinky and the Brain are alive and well and now living at the United Nations.

Rise up. Do not let them take away your freedom for that is their goal and they have only their best interests at heart. The ruling elite reserve the best for themselves and do not sacrifice. They take from you and there is nothing that they won’t take. Their policies are Regressive but to cover that truth they refer to themselves as Progressives. And when that term becomes commonly associated with the pejorative they will change it to something more positive but the underlying policies will remain totalitarian in their nature; They are political chameleons which change their camouflage but underneath they remain the same, Rise up. Do not let them take away your freedom for once lost short of a revolution it will be very difficult to get it back and they are betting they can manipulate you into losing it. Are they right?

Reasons to Doubt MMCC

🔺Below are some reasons to doubt the validity of the claim that human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels are responsible for the late 20th century warming.

Many of these are explained here.

1. There is no ‘hot spot’. Hot air rises but the cold upper troposphere eats the heat.
2. There is no acceleration of warming
3. There is no acceleration of sea level rise
4. Antarctic ice sheets are expanding not disappearing
5. Arctic sea ice fluctuates and is driven by wind and oceans NOT CO2. Arctic trend in sea ice area has not changed in a decade.
6. Some glaciers are receding and some are advancing How can CO2 be responsible for both. Is CO2 bipolar?
7. Extreme weather is not getting more frequent or more intense
8. Hansen’s model Scenario ‘C’ is higher than experienced global warming
9. The IPCC CO2 centric models run ‘hot’ compared to recent temperature history
10. As human emissions of CO2 have accelerated over the last 60+ years the rate of growth of CO2 in the atmosphere over the same time period has not.
11. When we compare the last 60 years of warming with the previous 60 years we find less warming per ppm of CO2 despite the rapid increase in CO2.
12. It has been hotter and colder in the past at levels of CO2 far greater than what we currently experience therefore CO2 cannot be the driver of past climate change
13. The Ice Ages and warmer interglacials of the last 800,000 years occurred at levels of CO2 lower than the current 400 ppm thus CO2 could NOT have been responsible.
14. CO2 has been at higher concentrations throughout most of the last 600 million years. There was no tipping point, no runaway global warming. We are here.
15. At various places around the world sunshine is known to have increased and cloud cover to have decreased in the late 20th century both of which could account for the modest rise in temperature experienced during this period.
16. Mountaintops are not warming.
17. UHI has contributed to the rise of temperatures and no effort has been made to discount that bias in the official temperature records.
18. NOAA debunked the 400 ppm CO2 panic in 2013  “The last time the worldwide carbon level probably hit 400 ppm was about 2 million years ago, said Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.That was during the Pleistocene Era. "It was much warmer than it is today," Tans said. "There were forests in Greenland. Sea level was higher, between 33 to 66 feet." Well, we have 400 ppm CO2 in the air again so how come it isn’t that warm now with coastal cities under water?
19. The data is being adjusted and that is man made global warming

Any one of these should be enough to dispel the notion that CO2 controls the temperature of the planet. Where does hot air go to cool off? Upper troposphere. Heatwaves do not last. Eventually, they wave bye bye. Heat does not accumulate in our atmosphere. It only moves from one place to another. Our atmosphere is a whirling, twirling, swirling mass of molecules in kinetic frenzy. Why should we expect anything but variable weather and changing climate to emerge from this potpourri of gaseous turmoil?

Contrary to the superstitious beliefs of some climatologists the human ability to control the immediate outdoor climate has not advanced past the technology of the shaman with his chanting and invocations to the imagined secret powers of the universe available only through him.

However, humans are very good at controlling the climate within our buildings and vehicles. This is how we keep ourselves comfortable and iron out the natural fluctuations in our climate during our annual trek around the sun. Instances of extreme weather like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought will always overwhelm our best efforts to avoid the destruction of these weather vagaries. It is the price of living on our planet. Instances of extreme weather are local not global. Do we conclude that CO2 causes a ruckus in one place but not another? How can it do that? What sets it off? What causes the change from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hyde? Why is CO2 behaving itself where I live but destroying lives elsewhere? Are there terrorist CO2 molecules?

Are you beginning to see how nonsensical it is to say that CO2 controls the climate?

Robust economic development around the world is our best defense against extreme weather. It allows us to rush necessities to areas that experience ruinous weather over which we have no control. Widespread economic development allows the human population to adapt to climate change with stronger buildings and better breakwalls. Global economic development is humanity's best defense against extreme climate change.