Friday, 28 February 2014

Climate Science is Zombie Science (or The Corruption of Real Science.)

Hurry, Hurry,  Hurry all you Global Warming Nazis!

Time is running out.

Only 17 years and 9 months left to claim $10K!

On 8/11/10 Australian Peter Laux launched a 20 year challenge on Denis Rancourt's Climate Guy Website: (link and link)

$10K Climate Challenge
Peter Laux, Locomotive Engineman from Australia, “will pay $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”
So far, there has been hardly a nibble. Exactly what Peter expected when he issued the challenge via Denis' Website. 

So where does the Zombie Science come in
? - I hear you ask. Well, Denis, on the Signs of the Times ( site has written a post with the same name reviewing a book by Dr. Bruce G. Charlton  entitled "Not even trying... The Corruption of real science"
In this book, Dr. Charlton defines what he calls "Zombie science".  
I submit that Dr. Charlton's definition of a "Zombie science" eminently applies to today's climate science. I predict that today's climate science enterprise will, in some future, be universally adopted as a textbook example of Zombie science by historians of science, who will emerge in a next generation of honest academics.  
Here is the definition of Zombie science given in the on-line version of Dr. Charlton's book:
When a branch of science based on incoherent, false or phoney theories is serving a useful but non-scientific purpose it may be kept-going by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose non-scientific interests it serves.  
For example, if a branch of pseudo-science based on a phoney theory is nonetheless valuable for political purposes (e.g. to justify a government intervention such as a new tax) or for marketing purposes (to provide the rationale for a marketing campaign) then real science expires and a 'zombie science' evolves.  
Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like real science.
But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds.  
Read More at SOTT.

The Global Warming Nazis keep moving the goalposts. When the current pause in warming occurred, at first they tried to ignore it and then, when the pause became too long to ignore,  they have run through a series of "excuses." Take your pick.

Marc Morano from Climate Depot explains:

Welcome to the world of ‘settled science’. With the latest study now placing blame on Sun for the ‘pause’ in global temperatures, that means there have been at least five seven eight nine separate explanations to attempt to explain the standstill in global warming. There is seemingly no end to warmists’ attempts to explain the global warming standstill. 
Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least nine separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ –
  1. Low Solar Activity; 
  2. Oceans Ate Warming; 
  3. Chinese Coal Use;
  4. Montreal Protocol; 
  5. Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed;
  6. Volcanoes;
  7. Decline in Water Vapor;
  8. Pacific trade winds;
  9. ‘Coincidence’
As these examples of Zombie Science are twitching and lumbering around, in the back room of the laboratories of the Global Warming Nazis are probably trying to bring Zombie No 10 to life.

Thursday, 27 February 2014

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans are dominant cause of warming climate

Dr Patrick Moore PhD was a co-founder of Greenpeace. Greenpeace try to talk this down, but as Patrick wrote in his book  Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist:
I joined Greenpeace before it was even called by that name. The Don’t Make a Wave Committee was meeting weekly in the basement of the Unitarian church in Vancouver. 
In April 1971 I saw a small article in the Vancouver Sun about a group planning to sail a boat from Vancouver across the North Pacific to protest U.S. hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. I immediately realized this was something real I could do, way beyond taking ecology classes and studying at a desk. I wrote the organizers and was invited to join the weekly meetings of the small group that would soon become Greenpeace.
However, by the early 80s, Patrick became disillusioned:
During the early 1980s two things happened that altered my perspective on the direction in which environmentalism, in general, and Greenpeace, in particular, were heading. The first was my introduction to the concept of sustainable development at a global meeting of environmentalists. The second was the adoption of policies by my fellow Greenpeacers that I considered extremist and irrational. These two developments would set the stage for my transformation from a radical activist into a sensible environmentalist. (my bold)
By the early 1980s a majority of the public, at least in the Western democracies, agreed with us that the environment should be taken into account in all our activities. When most people agree with you it is probably time to stop beating them over the head and sit down with them to seek solutions to our environmental problems. 
At the same time, the collapse of World Communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall led to the environmental movement being hijacked by the
political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalization than with science or ecology. 
I don’t blame them for seizing the opportunity. There was a lot of power in our movement and they saw how it could be turned to serve their agendas of revolutionary change and class struggle. But I differed with them because they were extremists who confused the issues and the public about the nature of our environment and our place in it. To this day they use the word industry as if it were a swear word. The same goes for multinational, chemical, genetic, corporate, globalization, and a host of other perfectly useful terms. Their propaganda campaign is aimed at promoting an ideology that I believe would be extremely damaging to both civilization and the environment. 
The infiltration of Communists, and their irrational policies, into the Green Movement led to Patrick Moore, the sensible environmentalist, to leave the organisation.

This week Patrick Moore gave evidence to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Fox News report:
Patrick Moore........ told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet. 
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said.

Selected Highlights of Dr. Patrick Moore’s Feb. 25, 2014 testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:

“Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears: ‘When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.’

On UN IPCC’s 95% confidence in man-made global warming: ‘Extremely likely’ is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.”

H/t Marc Morano

Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Maurice Strong and the Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science

BigOil Backed Bogus Bluff 

Who is the International Man of Mystery, Maurice Strong?

For the National Review in 1997 Ronald Bailey answered this question (link):

This lofty eminence? Maurice Strong, of course. Never heard of him? Well, you should have. Militia members are famously worried that black helicopters are practicing maneuvers with blue-helmeted UN troops in a plot to take over America.  
But the actual peril is more subtle. A small cadre of obscure international bureaucrats are hard at work devising a system of "global governance'' that is slowly gaining control over ordinary Americans' lives. Maurice Strong, a 68-year-old Canadian, is the "indispensable man'' at the center of this creeping UN power grab. 
Among the hats he currently wears are (ie were in 1997): Senior Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan; Senior Advisor to World Bank President James Wolfensohn; Chairman of the Earth Council; Chairman of the World Resources Institute; Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum; member of Toyota's International Advisory Board. As advisor to Kofi Annan, he is overseeing the new UN reforms.
Yet his most prominent and influential role to date was as Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development -- the so-called Earth Summit -- held in Rio de Janeiro, which gave a significant push to global economic and environmental regulation.
Ring any bells?


Thirteen years later, John Izzard, for QuadrantOnLine wrote:
...... the man behind the green curtain, the man who managed to get the climate industry to where it is today is a mild mannered character by the name of Maurice Strong. The whole climate change business, and it is a business, started with Mr Strong.  
Maurice Strong, a self-confessed socialist, was the man who put the United Nations into the environmental business, being the shadowy-figure behind the UN secretaries general from U Thant to Kofi Annan. 

From Maurice Strong's own site, we learn that early in his career he was trading in oil and mineral resources:
Moving to Calgary, Alberta, he became assistant to one of the most colorful and dramatically successful leaders of the oil industry, Jack Gallagher.  He gave Strong the opportunity of learning the business from a more operational point of view and as the company, Dome Petroleum, grew, Strong occupied several key roles, including Vice President, Finance.
Again from John Izzard:
Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few. 
This man, who made his fortune mainly from BigOil, was the man who, according to his own websiteglobalized the environmental movement.


In 1992, Strong, the BigOil man, organised the Rio Conference, also known as the Earth Summit. It was this conference that introduced Agenda 21:

Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections:
  • Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combatting poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.

As an aside, the Australian Minister for the Environment, Hon. Greg Hunt tries to ignore Agenda 21 even though it is deeply rooted in all the policies of all levels of Australian government.

Tim Ball, writing in his book "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science":
In the political climate in gendered by environmentalism and its exploitation, some demand a new world order and they believe this can be achieved by shutting down the industrialised nations. It was a major theme of the Club of Rome driven by studies like Limits to Growth and Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb. Maurice Strong was a senior member of the club (and speculated in his opening speech to Rio Earth Summit) in 1990:
What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?... In order to save the planet the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility bring this about?
Strong's speculation became a challenge taken up by the club that required translation to a workable plan. Consider the challenge of collapsing an industrialised civilisation. This is where carbon dioxide (CO2) becomes the focus. The civilisation the Club opposed comprised nations built on and driven by the energy provided by fossil fuels. It's reasonable to compare these nations to a car, very symbol of all they detest. You can stop a car engine by cutting off the fuel supply, but that would be extremely difficult and illicit quick anger in a country, as anger when fuel prices jump demonstrate. However, you can also stop a car engine by blocking the exhaust.

Tim Ball then refers to the the Club of Rome's report The First Global Revolution:
In searching for a common in enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. 
and later: (link)
"....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." 

Again from John Izzard:
Unfortunately, in 2005, the most powerful man in the push to save of humanity — by steady promotion of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases — was caught with his hand in the till.  
Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since. 
Maurice Strong, as an 18-year-old Canadian from Manitoba, started work at the United Nations in 1947 as a junior officer in the UN Security Section, living with the UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honours he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman.  
The exposure and downfall of climate change’s most powerful wizard? Dorothy and Toto would have loved it! 

Peer reviewed Paper: nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the planet's current level of warmth.

Harp Seal - Northernmost Atlantic
A paper, published by Climate Dynamics by Hanhijarvi et al titled Pairwise comparisons to reconstruct mean temperature in the Arctic Atlantic Region over the last 2,000 years (link)

Climate Dynamics Volume 41Issue 7-8pp 2039-2060


Existing multi-proxy climate reconstruction methods assume the suitably transformed proxy time series are linearly related to the target climate variable, which is likely a simplifying assumption for many proxy records. Furthermore, with a single exception, these methods face problems with varying temporal resolutions of the proxy data. Here we introduce a new reconstruction method that uses the ordering of all pairs of proxy observations within each record to arrive at a consensus time series that best agrees with all proxy records. The resulting unitless composite time series is subsequently calibrated to the instrumental record to provide an estimate of past climate. By considering only pairwise comparisons, this method, which we call PaiCo, facilitates the inclusion of records with differing temporal resolutions, and relaxes the assumption of linearity to the more general assumption of a monotonically increasing relationship between each proxy series and the target climate variable. We apply PaiCo to a newly assembled collection of high-quality proxy data to reconstruct the mean temperature of the Northernmost Atlantic region, which we call Arctic Atlantic, over the last 2,000 years. The Arctic Atlantic is a dynamically important region known to feature substantial temperature variability over recent millennia, and PaiCo allows for a more thorough investigation of the Arctic Atlantic regional climate as we include a diverse array of terrestrial and marine proxies with annual to multidecadal temporal resolutions. Comparisons of the PaiCo reconstruction to recent reconstructions covering larger areas indicate greater climatic variability in the Arctic Atlantic than for the Arctic as a whole. The Arctic Atlantic reconstruction features temperatures during the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Climate Anomaly that are comparable or even warmer than those of the twentieth century, and coldest temperatures in the middle of the nineteenth century, just prior to the onset of the recent warming trend. (my bold)

What does it mean?
What was learned
The ultimate take-home message of the three researchers is contained in the final sentence of their paper's abstract: "The Arctic Atlantic reconstruction features temperatures during the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Climate Anomaly that are comparable [to] or even warmer than those of the twentieth century, and coldest temperatures in the middle of the nineteenth century, just prior to the onset of the recent warming trend [italics added]."

What it means
Once again, we have another study of real-world data, which suggests that the warmest intervals of both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods may well have been warmer than the warmest interval of the Current Warm Period, suggesting that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the planet's current level of warmth.

Monday, 24 February 2014

Pernicious and Harmful Hoax of AGW

Dr William M Gray, Professor Emeritus, Department of Atmospheric Science,  Colorado State University has prepared a paper  for the Heartland Institute’s 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7) (Link pdf)

He closes the paper with the following: (my bolds)

7. Negative Consequences of Politics Trumping Climate Science 

Until the basic scientific flaws in the AGW theory are recognized and broadly accepted (as they eventually will have to be) it will not be possible for the scientific community and society to put this pernicious and harmful hoax to rest. The wide acceptance of this theory has had a profound negative influence on the US and the world. AGW’s basic scientific flaws must be made known as soon as possible so that the public can be made aware as to the fallacy of this hypothesis. This will help reduce the current economic, political, and psychological harm which is occurring around the globe due to AGW’s unrealistic warming propaganda and prevent greater harm in future years.

The AGW climate scare of the last 30 years did not come to the forefront from individual scientists beginning to coalesce around the idea that rising levels of CO2 might pose a serious future climate threat to society. This threat was, by contrast, imposed upon the world from ‘above’ by the coming together of globally influential politicians, environmentalists, internationalists, etc. who knew little about climate but saw great political opportunities by using the rising CO2 levels as a scare tactic

Sunday, 23 February 2014

IPCC Failure.

Professor Ole Humlum, in his January Climate4You report writes:
Most climate models assume the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide CO2 to influence significantly upon global temperature. It is therefore relevant to compare different temperature records with measurements of atmospheric CO2, as shown in the diagrams above. Any comparison, however, should not be made on a monthly or annual basis, but for a longer time period, as other effects (oceanographic, etc.) may well override the potential influence of CO2 on short time scales such as just a few years. It is of cause equally inappropriate to present new meteorological record values, whether daily, monthly or annual, as support for the hypothesis ascribing high importance of atmospheric CO2 for global temperatures. Any such meteorological record value may well be the result of other phenomena.  
After about 10 years of concurrent global temperature- and CO2-increase, IPCC was established in 1988. For obtaining public and political support for the CO2-hypothesis the 10 year warming period leading up to 1988 in all likelihood was important. Had the global temperature instead been decreasing, politic support for the hypothesis would have been difficult to obtain.  
Based on the previous 10 years of concurrent temperature- and CO2-increase, many climate scientists in 1988 presumably felt that their understanding of climate dynamics was sufficient to conclude about the importance of CO2 for global temperature changes. From this it may safely be concluded that 10 years was considered a period long enough to demonstrate the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 on global temperatures. 
The IPCC was formed after 10 years of apparent correlation between global temperature and CO2 increases. This apparent correlation lasted for another ten years. Then the wheels fell off the global warming Nazi's wagon, busting their hypothesis and we have had no significant warming since although the rise in atmospheric CO2 continues unabated.

Despite this, the recently released IPCC's AR5 report states that they have increased their certainty that man's CO2 emissions are causing warming from 90 to 95%.

How much longer do we have to prop up the false science of the global warming Nazis?

How Deniers view Global Warming

A short film revealing how deniers view global warming. Only two minutes, see the truth behind the climate scare.

Thursday, 20 February 2014

Tales from the dark side: Global Cooling according to the enemy

The dark side? Sites like Skeptical Science, herein after referred to as (UN)-Skeptical Science.

(UN)-Skeptical Science is a site set up to smear people who are sceptical about the falsified man made global warming hoax.

As Joanne Nova, herself a convert from the dark side, wrote: is a parody of skepticism. It is “skeptical of the skeptics”, which is all very well, but it accepts everything offered up by Authorities as if it is the Word of God.  “NOAA can do no wrong” (and was that NOAA or Noah?) 
All of the points held up by Cook are weak “whatever” issues: things that are hardly a flaw. He’s noticed that the disorganized mass of real skeptics sometimes disagree with each other, golly gee, which proves we think for ourselves and don’t answer to a higher bureaucracy. John Cook — who so wants to be seen as skeptical –  instead is anything but...
(UN)-Skeptical Science says that the current hiatus in the warming as shown in the graph above is not happening. A guest post by Kevin Trenberth:

Global warming is here to stay, whichever way you look at it

Posted on 30 May 2013 by Kevin Trenberth

The answer depends a lot on what one means by “global warming”.  
Why should it go up? Well, because the planet is warming as a result of human activities. With increasing carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there is an imbalance in energy flows in and out of the top of the atmosphere: the greenhouse gases increasingly trap more radiation and hence create warming. “Warming” really means heating, and this can exhibit itself in many ways.
This is the same Kevin Trenberth who, in the ClimateGate emails, was quoted
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. 
Is Trenberth here trying to counter that notorious quote?

Ben Santer who; in the same ClimateGate emails, tried to spike a "skeptics’ paper critical of Santer/Wigley that was published in Climate Research"; lead-authored a peer-reviewed paper:

Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale 

in which he wrote:
Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.
 So using the graph above, Ben and Kevin, does 17 years and 5 months negate the "human effects" on temperature?

Or Kevin, if you are dubious of the graph above, how about your chosen site to post your opinion, (UN)-Skeptical Science:

IS the planet warming or cooling?

Using the (UN)-Skeptical (UN)Science trend calculator, we find that the planet has been cooling, for somewhere between 9 years and 17 years.

Sks Trend Calculator

  9 years: GISS Since 2005                     Trend -0.022±0.269ºC/decade;
13 years: NOAA Since 2001                  Trend -0.003±0.145ºC/decade;
13 years: HadCRUT4 Since 2001          Trend -0.011±0.143ºC/decade;
17 years: RSS Since 1997                       Trend -0.012±0.199ºC/decade;

Is that it, Mr Santer? Will you now accept that the falsified AGW hypothesis has finally been put to bed?

Science has shown that temperature rises BEFORE atmospheric CO2. Why would it suddenly change in the 21st century?

The history shows that CO2 doesn't cause warming:

The current century data show no correlation between Carbon dioxide and temperature:

In fact, the 21st Century, so far has delivered cooling:

Come on Alarmists, hand back your grants, stop disgracing the name of science and admit that you had a political, not a scientific agenda.

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Obama Wants to Waste a Billion on "Climate Change"

From Alan Caruba's Warning Signs©

Barack Obama will be remembered for many things during his two terms in office, but high on the list, right after lying to everyone about everything, will be his determination to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on every Green scheme from solar and wind energy to electric cars, and now on “climate change.”

He is calling for a billion-dollar climate change fund in his forthcoming budget, due out next month. As reported in The Wall Street Journal, the fund “would be spent on researching the projected effects of climate change and helping Americans prepare for them, including with new technology and infrastructure, according to the White House.

We don’t need any research and we don’t need any new technology. The National Weather Service has hugely expensive computers that enable it to predict what the weather will be anywhere in the U.S. with some measure of accuracy for up to three or four days. After that, it gets fuzzy. What will the weather be next week? Well, maybe a bit warmer or a bit colder.

As for the effects of weather events, we have centuries of knowledge regarding this. We know what happens after a blizzard or a hurricane, a drought or a flood.

When a huge storm like Sandy hit the East Coast, we had FEMA that was supposed to come in and help the victims. The federal government also came up with a couple of million for the States most affected, but it is still a problem that local first responders and utilities have to address most directly.

Obama was out in California to show his concern for the drought-stricken farmers and the administration is speeding delivery of $100 million of aid to livestock farmers, $15 million for areas hit hardest, and $60 million for California food banks to help the poor. Rep. Kevin McCarthy(R-CA) pointed out that the drought has been “exacerbated by federal and state regulations” including an environmental rule that placed “the well-being of fish…ahead of the well-being” of communities.

Like Rep. McCarthy, those on the scene point out that the drought is in part the result of the failure to restore the water flow from California’s water-heavy north to farmers in the central and south. House Bill 3964 does that, but only if the Senate will stop holding it up. Rep. McCarthy is joined by Rep. Devin Nunes explaining that California’s system of aqueducts and storage tanks was designed long ago to take advantage of rain and mountain runoff from wet years and store it for use in dry years.

As pointed out, “Environmental special interests managed to dismantle the system by diverting water meant for farms to pet projects, such as saving delta smelt, a baitfish. That move forced the flushing of three million acre-feet of water originally slated for the Central Valley into the ocean over the past five years.”

Obama made no mention of that, but it is an example of how, in the name of climate change billions are wasted or lost, such as when the outcry over Spotted Owls caused a vast portion of the Northwest’s timber industry was decimated by the false claim that they were “endangered.”

All this traces back to the founding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. The IPCC was given a formal blessing by the UN General Assembly through Resolution 43/53.

And what has the IPCC done? It has championed the utterly false claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for warming the Earth and that all the industries and other human activities that create CO2 emissions had to reduce them in order to save the Earth. In 2007 the IPCC and Al Gore would share a Nobel Peace Prize. As an organization and as an individual these two have proved to be the among the greatest liars on planet Earth.

Dr. Craig D. Idso, PhD, is the founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He is an advisor to The Heartland Institute and, with Dr. Robert M. Carter and Dr. S. Fred Singer, authored the 2011 study, “Climate Change Reconsidered”, for the entertainingly named NIPCC—Not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Published by The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank that has led the effort to expose the IPCC since 2009, sponsoring eight international conferences, the report was updated in 2013 and a new update is due in March.

Writing in The Hill on January 30, Dr. Idso said 
“the President’s concerns for the planet are based upon flawed and speculative science; and his policy prescription is a recipe for failure” noting that “literally thousands of scientific studies have produced findings that run counter to his view of future climate.” 
“As just one example, and a damning one at that, all of the computer models upon which his vision is based failed to predict the current plateau (the cooling cycle) in global temperature that has continued for the past 16 years. That the Earth has not warmed significantly during this period, despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, is a major indictment of the model’s credibility in predicting future climate, as well as the President’s assertion that debate on this topic is ‘settled’.”
“The taxation or regulation of CO2 emissions is an unnecessary and detrimental policy option that should be shunned,” said Dr. Idso. Unfortunately for Americans, that is precisely the policy being driven by Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Department of the Interior and other elements of the government.

So the trip to California with its promise of more million spent when, in fact, the Green policies of that State have caused the loss of the Central lands that produce a major portion of the nation’s food stocks, reveals how utterly corrupt Obama’s climate-related policies have been since he took office in 2009.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered by the crony capitalism that is the driving force behind the IPCC’s and U.S. demands for the reduction of CO2 emissions.

There is climate change and it has been going on for 4.5 billion years on planet Earth. It has everything to do with the Sun, the oceans, volcanic activity and other natural factors. It has nothing to do with the planet’s human population.

What is profoundly disturbing is the deliberate political agenda behind the President’s lies and Secretary of State John Kerry’s irrational belief that climate change is the world’s “most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction.

© Alan Caruba, 2014