Economist Stephen Moore: Climate Change is World's Greatest Propaganda Campaign In History

Economist and author Stephen Moore. 
(Heritage Foundation)

There is a difference of opinion. Some believe that psychiatry is the greatest propaganda campaign in history. 

[From article]
Commenting on the Obama administration’s high-pressure offensive to address global warming, leading economist and author Stephen Moore said it is “amazing” because this “dingbat idea of global climate change” is “one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history” executed by the political left.
During a June 3 radio interview on the nationally syndicated Janet Mefferd Today show, Moore, the founder of the Club for Growth and a former Wall Street Journal editorial board member, said, “It’s really amazing, I have to say. I have to tip my hat to the left: This has been one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in world history that the left has pulled off.”
“I mean, they’ve taken this dingbat idea of global climate change and they’ve put it in the schools, they’ve put it in the movies, they’ve put it in the media and the churches — you know, I’m Catholic, even the Pope talks about climate change,” said Moore, co-author of Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy.
“So, it’s very alarming how this propaganda campaign, that they made this stuff out of, almost completely out of thin air and they’ve convinced millions and millions of thought leaders that this stuff is real,” said Moore, who is the Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Project for Economic Growth.
[. . .]
Moore said, “Yes, it’s interesting, it’s very Stalinistic. Right? … It’s like, ‘You’re going to toe the line or were going to put you in jail.’ You mentioned the fact that now, if you question them, they’d put me in jail, if they could. Steve Moore is an environmental skeptic, let’s put him in jail.”
“It’s like the Spanish Inquisition,” he said. “Truly, it’s frightening actually. These people don’t want dissent. They don’t believe in freedom of speech. They don’t think you have the right to question their religion of global warming.”
“They’re becoming more militaristic,” he said. “They are young Stalinists. I can’t go on college campuses today to even question their religion of global warming – and it is a religion, by the way. “

http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/stephen-moore-climate-change-one-greatest-propaganda-campaigns-world-history

Stephen Moore: Climate Change 'One of Greatest Propaganda Campaigns in World History’--'Very Stalinistic'
By Michael W. Chapman

June 9, 2016 | 1:39 PM EDT

Paris Accord On Climate Change A Failure

[From article]
The PA is mainly about money transfers, designed to provide a legacy for president Obama. Unlike the KP, the PA has little to do with climate. Although it talks bravely about keeping global warming below 2degC, it never explains how to define and measure this (alleged) “critical” threshold. I recently referred to it as a big "nothing-burger" -- borrowing a term used by the late Anne Gorsuch, EPA chief under president Reagan.
As compared with Kyoto, the PA includes both industrialized and developing nations, but its legal status is not well defined: Some nations have considered it a protocol to the (Rio de Janeiro) Global Climate Treaty, the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), and have ratified it as an international treaty. On the other hand, the White House (WH) does not label it a formal treaty and has not submitted it to the US Senate for ratification, fearing it will turn the PA down. [Even after nearly 20 years, everyone still remembers the unanimous Senate vote for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (of July 1997) against such a treaty.] Instead, the WH planned to meet US commitments though Executive Orders and by relying on its own interpretations of relevant laws
[. . .]
The PA can be briefly summarized as follows:
Each nation proposes to reduce emissions but sets its own voluntary emission target for greenhouse (GH) gases, especially for carbon dioxide (CO2); there is no overall target for global reduction. This procedure follows the pattern of the US-China agreement of November 2014, in which China decided to continue with business as usual (BAU) until reaching a 2030 peak -- and then gradually reduce CO2 emissions. In this manner, each signatory nation to the PA can pick and choose their emission targets and timing.
Furthermore, each nation reports its own emissions; there is no overall supervision.
No sanctions are applied if a country fails to abide by its announced plan.
[. . .]
The scheme is a simple bribe; it involves transfer of resources from hard-working non-wealthy citizens in developed nations to the Swiss bank accounts of kleptocrat dictators running most of the developing nations.
[. . .]
In trying to figure out what to do, I believe the Congress will go back to evaluate the science, starting from the beginning. Once they become better informed and the warmers can no longer beat them up with unproven claims, they will see the fraud themselves. Nobody will have the patience to wait for a new outcome, or to invest in climate research, while the misled and misleading warmers try to conjure a new approach. We could be watching a major historical occurrence in scientific research, forcing "scientists" to relearn the scientific method and to return to honesty as the first postulate of scientific research. We may eventually see the collapse of the climate industry.
Gordon Fulks wrote:
[. . .]
the clear harm would have been to the states forced to follow EPA regulations that are now likely to be overturned. The problem goes far beyond the EPA coal regulations; it involves Obama exceeding his authority with an obvious end-run around the Congress.
[. . .]
If Federal agencies are to continue enjoying the deference they now get from the courts, they have to be forced to do reputable science, not merely reputable politics.
“This could be the beginning of the end of Obama's dictatorial tendencies. We can only hope that it is likewise the beginning of the end of the climate scam.
[. . .]
Wall Street Journal editorial:
[. . .]
Once the Clean Power Plan starts, it becomes self-executing. If the EPA loses down the road, it will laugh that the opinion is too late and thus pointless.
“The White House has been right about the success of its damn-the-law strategy—so far. Last year in Michigan v. EPA, the Court voided a 2012 rule on mercury emissions. The chief EPA air administrator then gloated on the EPA website that the ruling didn’t matter
[. . .]
Rivkin & Grossman in the Wall Street Journal:
“President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is dead and will not be resurrected. The cause of death was hubris. As a result, the plan’s intended victims — including the national coal industry, the rule of law, and state sovereignty — will live to fight another day.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/paris_climate_accord_hope_change__and_collapse.html

February 23, 2016
Paris Climate Accord: Hope, Change -- and Collapse
By S. Fred Singer

Trees Versus Climate Warming Settled Science

[From article]
If these computer models used "settled science's" accepted figure of that time of 400 billion trees in this world breathing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then their input was so incredibly far off base as to render their projections of worldwide heating and subsequent human disaster worthless. An extra 2.6 trillion trees can suck up a whole lot of all those tons of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide that was programmed into those models. It just could be that the famed hockey stick has just taken on the predictive dimensions of a hockey puck in all those elaborate equations.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/climate_warming_computer_models_off_by_a_treemendous_factor.html

February 18, 2016
Climate warming computer models off by a tree-mendous factor
By Russ Vaughn

Rational Argument On Global Climate Change, Etc.

[From article]
This article is based on a Heartland Panel talk [Dec7, 2015, at Hotel California, Paris].

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has to provide proof for significant human-caused climate change; yet their climate models have never been validated and are rapidly diverging from actual observations. The real threat to humanity comes not from any (trivial) greenhouse warming but from cooling periods creating food shortages and famines.
Burden of proof
Climate change has been going on for millions of years -- long before humans existed on this planet. Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin and not anthropogenic. There is no reason to think that these natural causes have suddenly stopped. For example, volcanic eruptions, various types of solar influences, and atmosphere-ocean oscillations all continue today. We cannot model these natural climate-forcings precisely and therefore cannot anticipate what they will be in the future.

But let’s call this the “Null hypothesis.” Logically therefore, the burden of proof falls upon alarmists to demonstrate that this null hypothesis is not adequate to account for empirical climate data. In other words, alarmists must provide convincing observational evidence for anthropogenic climate change (ACC). They must do this by detailed comparison of the data with climate models. This is of course extremely difficult and virtually impossible since one cannot specify these natural influences precisely.
[. . .]
Anyway, any warming observed during the past century appears to be trivially small and most likely economically beneficial overall.

I therefore regard the absence of any significant GH warming as settled; note my emphasis on the word “significant.” Policies to limit CO2 emissions are wasting resources that could better be used for genuine societal problems like public health. They are also counter-productive since CO2 promotes plant growth and crop yields, as shown by dozens of agricultural publications.
I am much more concerned by a cooling climate -- as predicted by many climate scientists -- with its adverse effects on ecology and severe consequences for humanity.
[. . .]
At the same time, assuming that our scheme does not work perfectly, we need to prepare for adaptation to a colder climate, with special attention to supply of food and sustainable water and energy.
The outlook for such adaptation appears promising – provided there is adequate preparation. However, the coming cold period will test the survivability of our technological civilization.
I dedicate this essay to the memory of Prof “Bob” Carter, my fellow-panelist, NIPCC co-author, and travel companion in Western and Eastern Europe, China, and all around the USA. "He died with his boots on."

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/climate_change_the_burden_of_proof.html


January 29, 2016
Climate Change: The Burden of Proof
By S. Fred Singer

Volcanoes Contribution to Maintaining Earth's Temperature Equilibrium

Most volcanoes are in the “Ring of Fire” around the perimeter of the Pacific Ocean.
Graphic: Britannica Kids

Does the hot magma under the earth's surface have anything to do with the temperature of the earth? Do computer models which are the basis for "settled science" on global warming, climate change, disruption, etc., take into account the magma and earthquakes which lower the earth's temperature? Are earthquakes and volcanoes nature's method of maintaining its equilibrium? Was it performing this task long before man arrived? 

[From article]
Rock is flowing once again on Hawaii’s big island, where geologic change is not a matter of centuries and millennia, but rather of hours and days. Every square inch of these Hawaiian islands owes its existence to a hot spot that conduits molten rock from deep inside Earth to the surface.
[. . .]
The rare opportunity to watch terra firma forming in Hawaii is misleading: most of the planet’s crust was once rock — magma — that emerged from the deeps and cooled million or billions of years ago. Some estimates say that 80 percent Earth’s cold, hard surface originated as molten rock.
[. . .]
Volcanoes are awesome reminders that Earth is not a boring, static hunk of rock, but rather a living planet that coalesced from a hot cloud of gas and dust about 4.5 billion years ago. The skin cooled as heat from the surface radiated to space. But the high-temperature rock inside was insulated by the crust, and actually has gained heat from radioactive decay and gravitational energy.
In short, we’re sitting on a ball of fiery rock wrapped in a dozen kilometers or two of cool rock.
That’s unstable. Heat rises. Hot substances are less dense than colder ones, so magma is always looking for an escape hatch through the crust. And since heat is a form of energy, rising magma brings up oodles of energy — enough to power cataclysmic explosions. Enough to reshape the face of the planet.
[. . .]
To understand volcanoes, you need to know the Ring of Fire, where most of them are located. The Ring is located where tectonic plates meet and denser ocean crust sinks beneath the lighter continental crust.


Mt. Bromo, Java, Indonesia smolders in the foreground, with Mt. Semeru in back. Bromo’s caldera (note wall at left) encloses several younger, daughter cones.
Photo: Thomas Hirsch

[. . .]

As rising populations run out of safe places to live in volcano country, sooner or later volcanoes will write headlines of havoc. The dying was already under way 2,000 years ago, when Mt. Vesuvius erupted and buried Pompeii in 79 CE. Today, three million people in Naples, Italy, live in the shadow of Vesuvius.
Plenty of other cities face grave volcanic threats. At the western edge of the Ring of Fire, for example, densely crowded Japan, Philippines and Indonesia are all studded with active volcanoes.

Mt. Vesuvius, destroyer of Pompeii (whose ruins appear in foreground), poses a grievous threat to Naples. Photo:Pattie

http://whyfiles.org/2014/volcanoes-how-they-work-what-they-do/

Volcanoes: How they work; what they do
Posted 13 November 2014
David J. Tenenbaum

Science Seldom Remains Settled

Seldom mentioned about the earth and its climate is the shape of entire continents has changed over time. So what is now desert was once mountain and vice versa. The entire fantasy about global warming nee climate change is pure nonsense when viewed through the prism of history. Difficulty is so many bright omniscient young people have no idea what history is. Another element is that political propaganda called climate change is one method of pushing one world government, called globalism on the human population in order to eliminate individual freedom as enjoyed in the United States and Israel.



[From article]

The favorite cudgel of leftist climate change fear mongers is the appeal to authority, as in that there is “a scientific consensus” that the earth is warming and that changes over the last century are due to human activity. The problem with appeals to authority on extremely broad scientific topics is that they are not subject to easy proof by experimentation, and are quite often wrong. Here’s a list of ten popular theories ultimately proven false, and it omits some major howlers, like therapeutically bleeding people or the geocentric theory of the solar system. Now we can add to that list the “scientific consensus” that diets rich in processed foods and fats lead to heart disease.

[link to list]

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php



[. . .]

New studies of pre-modern humans, dating back many millennia, demonstrate that arteriosclerosis (the hardening of the arterial blood vessels that causes blockages and heart attacks) afflicted people who (by necessity and not choice) followed that most rigid of diet and exercise regimens -- hunting and gathering. The mummified remains of Neolithic era humans from around the globe demonstrate that arterial disease was about as commonplace in those ancient populations as it is today. Despite the fact that these people had diets low on saturated fats, high in proteins, vegetables and fruits, and engaged in regular and strenuous exercise, they still suffered from heart disease as they aged at about the same rates as modern humans.
[. . .]
one thing that is certain is that the earth’s climate has obviously undergone dramatic change in both historic and prehistoric time frames. In historic time (that is in the last 5000 years or so) there has been massive desiccation in northern Africa and the Middle East (probably due to long term warming) interspersed with mini-ice ages (countervailing periods of cooling especially in northern latitudes.) On balance, at least for people in the northern hemisphere (which is where most of the human population resides) warming has been a good thing, while cooling (with associated famines) a bad thing.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/another_scientific_consensus_bites_the_dust.html

January 3, 2016
Another 'Scientific Consensus' Bites the Dust
By Jonathan F. Keiler

Thomas Paine Needed To Counter Misguided Democratic Party Policies

[From article]
In his masterpiece, Common Sense, Thomas Paine observed:
Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
[. . .]
after seven years of Obama leading the Democratic Party in insane notions of transforming the country, it is clear that rational thought and common sense are skill sets greatly lacking among liberal elites.
Whether blinded by ideology, motivated by egocentrism and nihilism, or solely focused on their goals of destroying America’s exceptionalism (while ensuring that Democrats rule forever), liberals are incapable of scientific inquiry, common sense analyses, and reason.
[. . .]
“Let them eat cake” is the unspoken mantra whispered at White House dinners. While Obama, Kerry, and Gore fly around the globe in their private jets, the rest of us are forced to use inefficient energy-saving appliances, ridiculously expensive light bulbs, and toilets with no water pressure. Our elitist-in-chief lectured Americans, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times," and proceeded to heat the Oval Office to a temperature appropriate for growing orchids.
[. . .]
By his own estimation, Obama himself is an existential threat to mankind.
[. . .]
Anyone questioning the liberal mantra that Islam is a religion of peace, despite data to the contrary, is labeled an Islamophobe with the aim of shutting down honest debate. Islamists declared war on the U.S. well before 9/11 and yet liberals still refuse to name the enemy. To liberals, political correctness trumps common sense.
[. . .]
Refusing to recognize that terrorists will not only obtain guns whenever they want but that their weapon of choice is more often a bomb, liberals’ inability to reason has and will continue to lead to loss of life and limb. Only a change in commander-in-chief will save Americans from living through decades of terrorist attacks on our shores.
[. . .]
Iran has been at war with America since the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis in 1979.
Liberals ignore chants of “Death to America,” the murder of our soldiers on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-sponsored terrorism across the world
[. . .]
Democrats are so ignorantly enamored by European-style socialism, despite its complete collapse, that the U.S. economy has not grown during Obama’s reign and the divide among economic classes has widened.
[. . .]
Affirmative action and other forms of social manipulation will not produce more productive members of society but rather, more resentful minorities. And bringing in untold numbers of indigent immigrants, whether Hispanic, Muslim, or otherwise, will only create more of a burden on government-run social welfare programs.
[. . .]
Obama, Holder, Jarrett and the gang would have us believe that we are a country of racists. [. . .] this gang of angry black folks is fueling the flames of hate -- at the expense of African-Americans. Obama’s divisiveness has set the civil rights movement back decades
[. . .]
Whether sic’ing the IRS on those with whom he disagrees or ordering the NSA to spy on Congress and the Israelis, Obama has enlisted all troops to fight his perceived domestic enemies. His DOJ nonsensically fails to prosecute criminals (Black Panthers and CAIR) while fabricating cases against individuals who disagree with his policies, including Bob Menendez who voted against his Iran deal. [and Dinesh D'Souza]
[. . .]
In liberal la-la-land, our historic friends are now our enemies on whom we spy and our decades-long enemies are friends who get $150 billion and nuclear weapons for doing nothing other than threatening our national security.
[. . .]
History will look back at an America that won the Cold War under Reagan only to reignite it under Obama. Our descendants will ponder how their ancestors abandoned American supremacy, ingenuity, and civility due to ignorance, idealism, and an irrational obsession with politically correct progressivism that led to the transformation -– and decline -- of this once great nation.
[. . .]
Obama took an oath to defend the Constitution. He has been at war with its constraints since day one, usurping power from the other branches of government and ignoring the laws that he swore to uphold and the security of the country he vowed to defend.
[. . .]
Safe spaces, coed locker rooms and unisex bathrooms in elementary schools and government-funded harvesting of fetal tissue at Planned Parenthoods are all the rage these days.
[. . .]
Obama does not believe in the Constitutional limits of office. His hope is that if his actions are on the books long enough, they will become impossible to reverse.
[. . .]
under the dictatorial, insanely irrational policies of the liberals dominating the Democratic Party, the country is destined to fall into the same abyss as the Roman Empire.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/obama_and_the_insanity_of_the_liberal_mind.html

January 6, 2016
Obama and the Insanity of the Liberal Mind
By Lauri B. Regan

In Paris, Global Warming Alarmists Agreed To Have An Agreement

[From article]
Saving the planet has never been so easy.
The Paris climate talks concluded in a rousing round of self-congratulation over an agreement that, we are told, is the first step toward keeping the Earth habitable. If generating headlines and press releases about making history were the metric for anything, Paris might be as consequential — if misbegotten — as advertised.
[. . .]
The agreement is about the agreement, never mind what’s in it or what its true legal force is: namely, nil. Paris is a legally binding agreement not to have legally binding limits on emissions. It might be the most worthless piece of paper since the Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawed war — about a decade prior to the outbreak of World War II.
Politico reported that the talks were almost derailed at the last minute by the accidental insertion of the word “shall” deep in the text, which, by implying a legal obligation, was to be avoided at all costs (the US Senate would never give its assent to a legally binding treaty). The United States then scrambled to change the offending word to “should.”
The Paris summit operated on the principle of CBDRILONCWRC, or “Common But Differentiated Responsibility In Light Of National Circumstances With Respective Capability.” That means nothing was actually mandated on anyone because that proved — understandably enough, dealing with all the countries in the world — completely unworkable.
Instead, countries came up with so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. That’s climate bureaucratese for you make up your emissions target, whatever it is, and we will pretend to take it seriously. Thus do the waters recede and the Earth is saved from looming climate catastrophe.
Even if you believe the extremely dubious proposition that somehow the climate “consensus” perfectly understands perhaps the most complicated system on the planet, and can forecast with certitude and in detail what the global temperature will be a century from now, Paris is a charade.
[. . .]
As Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute points out, Pakistan produced a one-page document promising to “reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible.” For this we needed a headline-grabbing global confab?
[. . .]
As the Guardian put it, India “says coal provides the cheapest energy for rapid industrialization that would lift millions out of poverty.” That’s correct.
[. . .]
It speaks to a naive belief in the power of global shame over the sheer economic interest of developing countries in getting rich (and lifting countless millions out of poverty) through exploiting cheap energy — you know, the way Western countries have done for a couple of centuries.
If this is the best hope of the climate alarmists, their global campaign will be a welcome fizzle. All things considered, it probably is best that they occupy themselves with grand meetings and with the exertions attendant to believing their own p.r. Otherwise they could do real damage.

http://nypost.com/2015/12/14/obama-is-only-pretending-to-save-the-planet/

Obama is only pretending to save the planet
By Rich Lowry
New York Post
December 14, 2015 | 8:00pm

Fear Of Global Warming Is Used By Democrats Who Say Republicans Use Terrorism to Scare Americans

While journalists and liberal politicians condemn stirring up fear about Muslim terrorists, they do the very same fear mongering they condemn by scaring people about global warming which is based on unreliable computer models. How humorous is that?



[From article]
The “fear” hyperbole being disseminated by our media today discounts the attitude, innovation, practicality, and determination of the American people. It encourages terrorists and their leaders. If Americans are that fearful, then terrorism is succeeding, for that is the terrorists’ first goal: to terrorize us, to weaken us, to make us afraid and incapable of defending ourselves.
[. . .]
[Americans] have concluded that the top administration of their federal government has failed in its primary Constitutional duty to protect them and their families, in this case from Islamic Jihadist terrorists. This is the result of the administration’s refusal to create and implement a strategy which would protect the American public, and its intentional obstructionism that has blocked others, many of whom are dedicated federal government servants, from doing so.
[. . .]
government intelligence analyst Philip Haney reported that a program he had been working on, which probably could have gotten us early information about the San Bernardino terrorist cell and prevented this massacre, was shut down three years ago at the behest of our State Department. Why? Because, Haney states, the program was profiling Islamists, and that was forbidden.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/americans_are_not_fearful.html

December 14, 2015
Americans are not Fearful
By Michael S. Goldstein

Cambridge, MA Officials Upset About Computer Predictions of Future Hot Weather

Cambridge City Hall in Winter

The steering committee behind the CCVA used the best available science to give projections of the future, [said John Bolduc, the environmental planner for the Community Development Department (CDD), and] members acknowledge there is uncertainty. [. . .] The projections represented would happen if nothing was done to improve climate change. [. . .] The project steering committee [included no astronomers, no computer scientists, no geologists, and no meteorologists.] [C]ity manager Richard Rossi [said] “I don’t see a lot of young people at meetings in Cambridge. The younger generation will be key,” It is easier to fool young people who seldom have a large store of information on which to base their decisions. All of this "science" is based on computer models, predicting the future. None of what nature does or will do is included in those projections. The models are meaningless without knowing what nature will do. The earth heats and cools itself with and without man. What do the computer models know about the years 2020 to 2030, without knowing what nature will do? "The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." and "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20151209/NEWS/151206315/?Start=1

Cambridge looks to create action plan for climate change
By Natalie Handy
nhandy@wickedlocal.com
Posted Dec. 9, 2015 at 5:07 PM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

Nature Rules. Computer Models Follow

The "science" of global warming is based upon computer model predictions. Can these computer models predict what nature will do to maintain its equilibrium? Einstein recognized the need to compensate for the differences in time between satellites and people on earth. Else GPS systems would mislead them. Where is the role of nature cooling itself, warming itself when needed that is built into the "science" of computer modeling? Geologists and astronomers observe that weather patterns and earth temperatures go through 40,000 year cycles. Are there "scientific" computer models based on these cycles? "The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." and "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken



http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20151205/NEWS/151207477

EDITORIAL: Setting climate goals, promises
Posted Dec. 5, 2015 at 1:14 PM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

MIT Graduate Student Demands Conformity With His Views on Global Warming

Essayist cites "the international community [for an] upper limit of tolerable warming." Using international standards for policy in the United States, white people, a minority in the world, deserve protections from the oppressive majority non white population. Maybe some affirmative action at MIT? Convince Exxon and BP to cease extracting oil. Will essayist petition ISIS in Iraq, Russia, Venezuela to join the ban? Argument that a committee majority recommends action is not a scientific finding. Ethics experts make recommendations, personal opinion, like psychiatry. Spreading disinformation is protected speech. Government agencies and PR flacks do it every day. Is he recommending a bureau of permitted speech?



[From article]
2 degrees Celsius, the upper limit of tolerable warming agreed upon by the international community, and by MIT itself.
[. . .]
I’m skeptical that MIT can convince Exxon, BP and the like to forgo extracting fossil fuel reserves
[. . .]



a three-fourths majority of the president’s own climate committee supported MIT’s divesting [. . .] form an Ethics Advisory Council to investigate ties between MIT and entities spreading disinformation on climate change.

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20151028/NEWS/151025648

GUEST COLUMN: MIT's paltry plan for climate action
By Ben Scandella
Posted Oct. 28, 2015 at 2:24 PM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle
Ben Scandella is a PhD candidate in MIT Civil and Environmental Engineering.

MIT Climate Change Opponent Objects To Wealthy Donors

Some facts are seldom discussed in extremist climate change rants. Climate research is based on computer models. Can models know what nature will do in the future? Nature adapts to maintain its equilibrium. Nature overcomes whatever man does. The sun has a major effect on climate. Can humans persuade the sun to behave? Geologists and astronomers explain that earth's climate goes through 40,000 year cycles. Is there any evidence over that long a period supporting anxiety of the warmists? David Koch's "bankrolling," of alternative views, also provides funds for research which this concerned MIT scientist supports. Should government require Koch to ask permission from Mr. Supran before he gives his money away?


Geoffrey Supran, MIT

[From article]
with the likes of climate science disinformation bankroller David Koch on MIT's Board, and with our university more dependent on corporate funding than almost any other in the country, anything is possible.

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20150922/NEWS/150928968

Guest column: MIT Climate Countdown — A call to action
By Geoffrey Supran
Posted Sep. 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

Mark Steyn Stands Up To Climate Bullies, Exposes Their Fake Science

[From article]
Mann obliterated two mainstays of traditional climate science: the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. In the opinion of many eminent scientists, this feat was accomplished by employing dubious statistical analysis, by using and even manipulating scanty tree-ring evidence, and by tacking on actual thermometer readings for recent times to tree-ring proxy data that was largely employed to erase significant climate variations in the past. These methodological shenanigans resulted in the apocalyptic headline that summarized the Mann-dominated IPCC report of 2001, namely, that 1998 was “likely” the warmest year in the warmest decade in the warmest century of the past 1,000 years -- a headline gobbled up by lazy and politically-motivated climate journalists.
[. . .]


Mark Steyn

As a closing bonus, Steyn explains the origin of the “97% of all scientists” mantra that Mann and President Obama confidently throw around whenever the “settled science” of climate change is at issue. Short story shorter: 97% comes from a survey conducted for a thesis by a University of Illinois graduate student who, having received 3,146 responses to a two-question online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, eventually identified 77 “experts” of which 75 (97%) were found to agree with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. There’s no word as yet on the identity and views of the other 10,180.
[. . .]
Steyn, National Review, et al. are being sued for defamation by the aforementioned Dr. Mann. In other words, true to form, Mann is using intimidation to silence critics. Specifically, the legal case concerns a National Review blog post dated July 15, 2012, in which Steyn quotes aerospace engineer Rand Simberg’s negative comments about the Penn State hockey-stick inventor, including the remark that Mann has become “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science.” Steyn proceeds in a mere 147 words to distance himself somewhat from Simberg’s metaphor, to identify Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent ‘hockey-stick’ graph,” and to note that the same college president who “declined to find one of its star names [Paterno] guilty of any wrongdoing” and who was forced to resign over the Sandusky scandal also oversaw the exculpatory investigation of Mann after the “Climategate” emails were made public.



The fact that this speech-suppressing defamation suit in the D.C. courts has been going on for years without media outrage clearly shows that Steyn’s derogatory book title applies to American journalists and courts as much as to the now-greatly-diminished Penn State climatologist.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/steyn_puts_warmists_in_the_dock.html

September 19, 2015
Steyn puts Warmists in the Dock
By Richard Kirk

The Pope And The New York City Mayor

 

Pope Francis

One comment referred to what the (computer?) models show. Isn't that what all conclusions about "settled science" about global warming derives from? Gore's film like the Pope cites politicians, who are further removed from reality. Problem with computer models is they omit the role of nature adapting to changes in the environment. Nature always does what it needs to do in order to maintain equilibrium. Computer models cannot know what nature will do.



http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0724oc.html



OREN CASS
Pope Francis’s Plan to Impoverish New York . . .
. . . and the Gotham mayor who embraces it
July 24, 2015

Maunder Minimum May Cause Mini Ice Age

A silent sun: In 2011 this image was captured showing an almost clear sun - which experts say could happen for almost a decade from 2030.

Maybe Al Gore and George Soros can persuade the sun to behave.


[From article]
The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.
A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.
This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet
New study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles
Says that between 2030 and 2040 solar cycles will cancel each other out
Could lead to 'Maunder minimum' effect that saw River Thames freeze over
By MARK PRIGG FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 12:40 EST, 10 July 2015 | UPDATED: 15:42 EST, 10 July 2015

Climate Change, The New Religion

Lotter says, "Pope Francis reminds us that climate justice is at its core a social justice issue." Does that mean that 97 percent of scientists who support the computer model theory of science are wrong? It is not a scientific certainty, not settled science? Does it mean that global warming is a religion, that changed it name? Does Lotter suggest there was no climate change before humans appeared on the earth? Before there were fossil fuels? Was the earth's climate unchanging then?

[From article]
In a global economy driven by profits and exploitation, Pope Francis urges each and every one of us to reinvest in our future, our shared wellbeing, and our ethical integrity by turning away from fossil fuels.
Pope Francis reminds us that climate justice is at its core a social justice issue.
[. . .]
The Pope’s take-home message is that we have a moral obligation to address the main cause of climate change, which is the burning of fossil fuel.
[. . .]
Sarah Lotter, a Somerville resident, is a member of 350Massachusetts, a grassroots organization that advocates for radical action to address climate change.

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20150704/NEWS/150709261

Guest column: Pope's encyclical brings urgency of climate movement to new level
By Sarah Lotter
Posted Jul. 4, 2015 at 8:31 AM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

Two Books About History of Climate Change

These books comport with the comments in Dimitar Sasselov's book The Life of Super-Earths: How the Hunt for Alien Worlds and Artificial Cells Will Revolutionize Life on Our Planet, wherein he observes that climate changes run on a 40,000 year cycle. For those who think there is no history Mr. Gore's superficial claims make sense. In terms of history the alarmists are at best misguided. 

[From article]
In "The Third Horseman: Climate Change and the Great Famine of the 14th Century," William Rosen explains how Europe's "most widespread and destructive famine" was the result of "an almost incomprehensibly complicated mixture of climate, commerce, and conflict, four centuries in gestation." Early in that century, 10 percent of the population from the Atlantic to the Urals died, partly because of the effect of climate change on "the incredible amalgam of molecules that comprises a few inches of soil that produces the world's food."
[. . .]
came the severe winters of 1309-1312, when polar bears could walk from Greenland to Iceland on pack ice. In 1315 there was rain for perhaps 155 consecutive days, washing away topsoil. Upwards of half the arable land in much of Europe was gone; cannibalism arrived as parents ate children. Corpses hanging from gallows were devoured.
[. . .]
In "Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century," Geoffrey Parker, a history professor at Ohio State University, explains how a "fatal synergy" between climatological and political factors produced turmoil from Europe to China.
[. . .]
The flight from abandoned farms to cities produced the "urban graveyard effect," crises of disease, nutrition, water, sanitation, housing, fire, crime, abortion, infanticide, marriages forgone and suicide. Given the ubiquity of desperation, it is not surprising that more wars took place during the 17th-century crisis "than in any other era before the Second World War."
[. . .]
Neither book, however, supports those who believe human behavior is the sovereign or even primary disrupter of climate normality, whatever that might be. With the hands that today's climate Cassandras are not using to pat themselves on the back for their virtuous empiricism, they should pick up such books

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will010815.php3

Climate change's instructive past
By George Will
Published Jan. 8, 2015

Mark Levin Feels Boston's Pain

[From article]
"My heart goes out to the people of Boston," Levin, who is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, told the Washington Examiner Thursday. "It's obvious their political leaders don't care that they have been suffering so much this winter. They want to make energy more expensive and keep people freezing and miserable. I am hoping to start this movement in the coldest areas, the bluest areas. I want to encourage people to drive their cars more often, keep their lights on, and use more energy, which is what gives us life."
Members of the climate change consensus accuse skeptics variously of denying science, ignoring evidence or even being stooges of large energy producers. But Levin has staked out a position even further out on the continuum than most global warming villains.
[. . .]
"The reason Republicans don't make this case is because there is something truthfully wrong with them," he told the Examiner. "This is third-grade science. You exhale carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in, and that's why we're the planet Earth and not the frozen planet Mars."
Levin argues that CO2 is only a trace gas in the planet's atmosphere — estimated at 400 parts per million — and condemns the Establishment's often strong efforts to dissuade counterarguments and claim scientific near-unanimity on climate change.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americans-for-carbon-dioxide-mark-levins-idea-whose-time-has-come/article/2561123

Americans for Carbon Dioxide --- Mark Levin's idea whose time has come
BY TIM CAVANAUGH

MARCH 5, 2015 | 4:50 PM

MIT Climate Scientist Questions Global Warming Alarmists

[From article]
his opponents characterize him—variously, a liar, a lunatic, a charlatan, a denier, a shyster, a crazy person, corrupt
[. . .]
A pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT, Lindzen sees his discipline as being deeply compromised by political pressure, data fudging, out-and-out guesswork, and wholly unwarranted alarmism.
[. . .]
In the 1970s, while a professor at Harvard, Lindzen disproved the then-accepted theory of how heat moves around the Earth’s atmosphere,
[. . .]
Over the decades, he’s authored or coauthored some 200 peer-reviewed papers on climate.
[. . .]
an issue of Newsweek declaring all scientists agreed. And that was the beginning of a ‘consensus’ argument.
[. . .]
he is voluminously on record disputing the predictions of catastrophe.
[. . .]
The question at issue is how sensitive the planet is to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (this is called climate sensitivity), and how much the planet will heat up as a result of our pumping into the sky ever more CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for upwards of 1,000 years.
[. . .]
he contends that the “alarmists” vastly overstate the Earth’s climate sensitivity. Judging by where we are now, he appears to have a point; so far, 150 years of burning fossil fuels in large quantities has had a relatively minimal effect on the climate. By some measurements, there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been at any time in the past 15 million years.
[. . .]
over the past 15 years, as man has emitted record levels of carbon dioxide year after year, the warming trend of previous decades has stopped. Lindzen says this is all consistent with what he holds responsible for climate change: a small bit of man-made impact and a whole lot of natural variability.
[. . .]
The IPCC report itself, weighing in at thousands of pages, is “not terrible. It’s not unbiased, but the bias [is] more or less to limit your criticism of models,” he says. The Summary for Policymakers, on the other hand—the only part of the report that the media and the politicians pay any attention to—“rips out doubts to a large extent. .  .  . [Furthermore], government representatives have the final say on the summary.” Thus, while the full IPPC report demonstrates a significant amount of doubt among scientists, the essentially political Summary for Policymakers filters it out.
[. . .]
the most glaring failure of the models: their inability to predict the 15-year-long (and counting) pause in warming
[. . .]
Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open.
[. . .]
“But the environmental movement is highly organized. There are hundreds of NGOs. To coordinate these hundreds, they quickly organized the Climate Action Network, the central body on climate. There would be, I think, actual meetings to tell them what the party line is for the year, and so on.” Skeptics, on the other hand, are more scattered across disciplines and continents. As such, they have a much harder time getting their message across.
[. . .]
Because climate change is invisible, only the experts can tell us whether the planet is sick or not. And because of the way funds are granted, they have an incentive to say that the Earth belongs in intensive care.
[. . .]
One frustrating feature of the climate debate is that people’s outlook on global warming usually correlates with their political views. So if a person wants low taxes and restrictions on abortion, he probably isn’t worried about climate change. And if a person supports gay marriage and raising the minimum wage, he most likely thinks the threat from global warming warrants costly public-policy remedies.
[. . .]
it is well known that the vast majority of “alarmist” climate scientists, dependent as they are on federal largesse, are liberal Democrats.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html

What Catastrophe?
MIT’s Richard Lindzen, the unalarmed climate scientist
JAN 13, 2014

VOL. 19, NO. 17

BY ETHAN EPSTEIN