Story On Page 3 - Paper Tole Institute: Fill & Download for Free

No it was the incredible skill of highly political leaders like Maurice Strong of Canada that wanted a leverage to dump market capitalism and chase after a more socialist government.The man who invented climate change was not a scientist. He was a powerful influencer on UNITED NATIONS environmental programs.Therefore, from the start and continuing today the UNIPCC is ok with the pseudo-science of demonizing life giving Co2 ,which has “nothing to do with the environment” because this is the road to global wealth distribution. I am not making this up as these words of Dr. Ottmar Endenhoffer - leading German scientist and IPCC co-chair confirm.Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” As Endenhofer admits the environment is second fiddle as the helps us understand the alarmists willingness to go along with fudged data and ‘phony science.’“No matter if the science is all phony; there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of CanadaThat Paris conference agenda got a useful boost from U.S. government agency scientists at NASA and NOAA who conveniently provided “warmest years ever” claims. Both have histories of stirring overheated global warming stew pots with alarming and statistically indefensible claims of recent “record high” temperatures.http://www.climatedepot.com/2017...In a farewell piece on Strong’s passing in 2015 Booker summarizes the amazing role of Strong in creating the UN IPCC.Farewell to the man who invented 'climate change’by Christopher Booker 2015During the Second World War, having emerged from humble origins in the Great Depression, Strong became convinced that the new United Nations should become a world government, dedicated to ensuring that the wealth enjoyed by the richer countries of the West should be spread out around the world’s underprivileged majority.Maurice Strong: he established the UN’s environmental agenda (Canadian Press/AP)In the Sixties, having become very rich himself from Canada’s oil industry, Strong came to see that the key to his vision was “environmentalism”, the one cause the UN could harness to make itself a truly powerful world government.A superb political operator, in 1972 he set up a UN “Environment Conference” in Stockholm, to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind. They should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries, at the expense of poorer countries across the globe.To pursue this, he became founding director of a new agency, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and in the Eighties he took up the cause of a tiny group of international meteorologists who had come to believe that the world faced catastrophic warming. In 1988, UNEP sponsored this little group into setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).In 1992, now allied with the IPCC, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he set up another new body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to stage that colossal “Earth Summit” over which he presided in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.It is the UNFCCC which in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris. And all along it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process, centred on the principle that the richer developed countries must pay for a problem they created, to the financial benefit of all those “developing countries” that have been its main victimsIn 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao. It was from there that he returned home to Canada to die,on November 27.The scientists behind the issue were on a mission and misbehaved by fudging the data to make the climate seem warmer than it was. As soon as the politicians like Al Gore usurped the science they declared a fake consensus demanding public acceptance that the science is settled not open to debate."Strong’s dream is more than ever falling apart"But the wonderful irony is that the reason why Paris will fail, like Copenhagen before it, is that those “developing countries”, led by China and India – now the world’s first and third largest “CO2 emitters” – have not the slightest intention of curbing their emissions. It is for the West to do that, for creating “the problem”. Thus, just as he died, Strong’s dream is more than ever falling apart – thanks to those very countries his socialist vision was intended to help.Farewell to the man who invented 'climate change'ChinaThe President of China, Hu Jin Tao, greets Maurice StrongStrong, from his earliest days, had a deep interest in and fascination for China and has been going to China for more than 40 years in various capacities, personal, United Nations, World Bank and business.He now spends most of his time there and is active as an advisor and business relationships in the environment, energy, and technology sectors. His principal activities are centered at Peking University, where he is an active Honorary Professor, as well as Honorary Chairman of its Environmental Foundation and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Research on Security and Sustainability for Northeast Asia, following up on his experience with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).Indeed, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, near the end of his term, paid the following tribute to Strong:“Looking back on our time together, we have shared many trials and tribulations and I am grateful that I had the benefit of your global vision and wise counsel on many critical issues, not least the delicate question of the Korean Peninsula and China’s changing role in the world. Your unwavering commitment to the environment, multilateralism and peaceful resolution of conflicts is especially appreciated.”Judith Curry Blog ‘POLITICIZING THE IPCC REPORT’In the global debate about climate change and energy policy, science is increasingly becoming a side show, and used when it is convenient to justify a politically desirable policy. Well, that is politics. I have two concerns:1. ‘Using’ climate science in this way has a very unfortunate impact on climate science itself: ‘inconvenient’ questions don’t get asked and inconvenient science doesn’t get funded.2. If people are concerned about the adverse impacts of extreme weather events, reducing CO2 emissions are not going to have any impact on policy relevant time scales, even if you accept the IPCC analyses. Resources expended on energy policy are in direct conflict with reducing vulnerability to extreme events.242 RESPONSES TO “POLITICIZING THE IPCC REPORT”Paul Matthews | July 29, 2014 at 1:15 pm |One point that is important to make for the US audience is that here in the UK, although it is politicised, the climate debate does not divide sharply along party lines in the way it does in the US. Of the two dissidents, one is Conservative (Lilley) but the other is Labour (Stringer). One thing these two have in common is a degree in a science subject, unlike the other committee members. Thanks for the link!Jeffn | July 29, 2014 at 4:04 pm |That is an interesting point that is raised often. I wonder, however, how much of that fact is simple political survival. Both parties in the UK endorsed policy that has proven to be simultaneously extraordinarily expensive and useless. To have to admit that and acknowledge that the scare story used to sell the bad policy is overblown would be political suicide. The short version of this “report” is MPs Claim: We Aren’t Totally Incompetent, We Really Did Have a Reason to Wreck The Nation’s Energy Policy!The Toles cartoon is a classic of warmist hypocrisy. The warm constantly parley every hot day or storm into “proof” or “evidence” of AGW, yet when their own meme is thrown in their faces in a cold snap, they pat each other on the back over how clever they are to point out the dupes who can’t tell the difference between weather and climate. No doubt it raises a weak cheer from the faithful, but nobody else is buying it.rls | July 29, 2014 at 5:14 pm |I think it is the opposite in the US. The plurality is against big spending to reign in CO2 emissions. When Obama’s party had control of both chambers of congress he could not get Cap and Trade passed.Hugh Whalen | July 29, 2014 at 1:42 pm |The whole IPCC/AGW seems to me to correspond to this:Question: Do you agree that crime is a problem?Answer: 97% of the populations says: YES!Conclusion: 97% of the population supports the death penalty. It must be instituted immediately. Sigh.David Wojick | July 29, 2014 at 1:56 pm |An excellent analogy, Hugh. 97% think humans have made some contribution to the past warming (if only UHI). Then it is claimed that they therefore support drastic decarbonization efforts. This is the way political arguments often work, or try to.Turnedoutnice | July 29, 2014 at 1:53 pm |it looks very much as if the final obstacle to progression along the path of sanity has been overcome. It is the acceptance that the explanation of the ‘hiatus’ aka ‘pause’ by natural cooling processes, countering the GHE, implies that natural heating processes contributed to the previous http://warming.So far so good; Latif argues that the IPCC’s CO2 ‘Climate Sensitivity’ has been far too high: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/...However, there is much further to go; the reality is that solar processes account for most if not all of the post 1710 warming: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co...CO2 Climate Sensitivity may be very low indeed and it is easy to show how……..UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warmingMICHAEL BASTASCH12:08 PM 01/15/2014Play VideoUnited Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”>Al Gore, former US presidential candidate and now the apopalytic, big Democrat climate huckster is most responsible for the politicalization of climate science. Sadly, Gore used poor judgment in choosing his science colleagues. Gore relied mostly on the ravings of former NASA scientist and “loose cannon” Dr. James Hansen. He is an astronomer, the great apoloptic exaggerator. He is under ethics cloud for million dollar personal awards. Also Gore embraced the disreputable Michael Mann, junior scientist and author of the fake hockey stick graph that erased accepted climate history. Barack Obama became Gore’s political supporter and crusader willing to mislabel life giving, non toxic Co2 as pollution for the cause.Al Gore’s dirty tricks (phony science is ok with him.)National Post (Latest Edition)1 Aug 2017 Alex EpsteinAlex Epstein is author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.Al Gore with former mayor of Tacloban City Alfred Romualdez and Typhoon Haiyan survivor Demi Raya.The more than seven billion people living in the world today need affordable, abundant energy — and a livable climate — to flourish. But the world’s leading source of energy is also the leading source of increasing greenhouse gases.What to do? This is the vital question Al Gore took on in his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, and takes on again in his newly released follow- up An Inconvenient Sequel.As the most influential figure in the international climate conversation, Gore has a responsibility to give us the whole picture of fossil fuels’ impacts — both their benefits and the risks they pose to humans flourishing. Unfortunately, Gore has given us a deeply biased picture that completely ignores fossil fuels’ indispensable benefits and wildly exaggerates their impact on climate.The running theme throughout An Inconvenient Sequel is that Gore’s first film was even more right than he expected. The movie begins with defenders of fossil fuels mocking or ignoring the dramatic predictions of An Inconvenient Truth. Leaving aside a heroic (and highly disputed) portrayal of Gore rescuing the Paris climate accord, the rest of the movie focuses on vindicating Gore’s two chief predictions: 1) That we could replace fossil fuels with cheap solar- and windpowered “renewables”; and 2) that continued use of fossil fuels would lead to catastrophic temperature rises, catastrophic sea- level rises, catastrophic flooding, catastrophic drought, catastrophic storms, and catastrophic disease proliferation.To justify these claims, Gore makes extensive uses of anecdotes: he shows us the town of Georgetown, Texas, and its use of 100-percent renewable energy, a deadly heat wave in India, a deadly flood in Miami, a deadly drought in Syria, a deadly storm in the Philippines, and the Zika virus penetrating t he United States.Some of his anecdotes are meant to prove that cheap solar and wind are, as 2006 Gore prophesied, quickly dominating t he world’s energy supply and, as 2006 Gore also warned us, that our rapidly warming climate is killing more and more people each year. But he has not given us the whole picture.Take the rising dominance of solar and wind, which is used to paint supporters of fossil fuels as troglodytes, fools, and shills for Big Oil. The combined share of world energy consumption from renewables is all of two per cent. And it’s an expensive, unreliable, and therefore difficult-to-scale two per cent.Because solar and wind are “unreliables,” they need to be backed up by reliable sources of power, usually fossil fuels, or sometimes non-carbon sources including nuclear and large- scale hydro power (all of which Gore and other environmentalists refuse to support). This is why every grid that incorporates significant solar and wind has more expensive electricity. Germans, on the hook for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s self- righteous anticarbon commitments, are already paying three times the rates for electricity that Americans do.Stories about “100- percent renewable” locations like Georgetown, Texas, are not just anecdotal evidence, they are lies. The Texas grid f rom which Georgetown draws its electricity is comprised of 43.7 per cent natural gas, 28.8 per cent coal, 12 per cent nuclear, and only 15.6 per cent renewable. Using a virtue- signall i ng gimmick pioneered by Apple, Facebook, and Google, Georgetown pays its state utility to label its grid electricity “renewable” — even though it draws its power from that fossil- fuel heavy Texas grid — while tarring others on the grid as “non-renewable.”If we look at the overall trends instead of engaging in anecdotal manipulation we see that fossil fuel energy is the fastest-growing energy source in the world — still. Fossil fuels have never been more vital to human flour ishing. There are 1,600 coal Advances in technology are making fossil fuels cleaner, safer, and more efficient than ever. To reduce their growth let alone to radically restrict their use — which is what Gore advocates — means forcing energy poverty on billions of people.Gore and others should be free to make the case that the danger of greenhouse gases is so serious as to warrant that scale of human misery. But they should have to quantify and justify the magnitude of climate danger. And that brings us to the truth about climate.The overall trend in climate danger is that it is at an all-time low. The Emergency Events Database ( EM- DAT) shows 6,114 climate- related deaths in 2016. In other recent years the numbers have maxed out in the tens of thousands. Compare this to the 1930s when, adjusted for population, climate- related deaths hit the 10- million mark several times.The most s i gnificant cause of our radically reduced climate danger is industrial development, which takes a naturally dangerous climate and makes it unnaturally safe. And industrial development is driven by cheap, plentiful, reliable energy — which, today, overwhelmingly means fossil fuels. Climate will always be dangerous so priority number one is to have the energy and development to tame it. Modern irrigation, residential heating and air conditioning have made once uninhabitable places perfectly comfortable.Gore’s Inconvenient Sequel gives a biased, selfserving, and convenient picture of fossil fuels and climate — convenient for Gore’s legacy, that is, but inconvenient for the billions his energy poverty policies will harm. As citizens, we must start demanding responsible thought leaders who will give us the whole picture that life- and- death energy and climate decisions require.When the UNIPCC first published their radical unproven theory about fossil fuel emissions of Co2 they demanded “the science is settled.” Their supporters refused to debate and attacked skeptics personally. The UN head said this issue was his ‘religion’ so it has become a matter of politics and belief not science.2. Dr. James Hansen is a lead IPCC scientist who conspired to fudge climate data to make the past look colder and present look warmer.“But in the year 2000, NASA and NOAA altered the historical US temperature record, which now shows that there was about one degree centigrade US warming during the century before 1989.The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.Hansen’s recent temperature data tampering is not limited to the US. He has done the same thing all over the planet. Below is one recent example in Iceland, where he dramatically cooled the first half of the century, and warmed the present. He appears to be trying to erase evidence that there was a very warm period in much of the Arctic around 1940.Hansen has never provided any evidence to support the idea that skeptics are either well funded or intentionally misleading the public, yet he frequently repeats this claim.Dr. Hansen has suggested that fossil fuel corporation CEOs are intentionally committing high crimes against the planet – because they don’t believe his spectacularly failed mispredictions.”Hansen went on to say: “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”James Hansen: Try Fossil Fuel CEOs For ‘High Crimes Against HumanityAdditionally Dr. Hansen has been arrested several times for committing crimes in “defense of the planet”.‘Without Hansen’s bold move into massive data tampering, the global warming scam would have been dead decades ago. Hansen quickly learned that he could use the trust NASA had built up during the Apollo program as cover to turn cooling into warming. All things become possible once a scientist makes the move into data tampering and fraud.’Make no mistake about it, the people behind this scam are criminals – not scientists. They have nothing but failed predictions and fraud in their past and present.http://climatechangedispatch.com...NASA. JAMES HANSEN, AND THE POLITICALIZATION OF SCIENCENew issues swirl around controversial NASA branchNASA's primary climate monitoring agency is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Operating out of a small office at Columbia University, GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen. Official NASA climate statements come through GISS ... which means they must get by Hansen. Many other scientists and agencies make climate predictions, but Hansen's top the list for scare factor, predicting consequences considerably more dire than his colleagues.Hansen specializes in climate "modeling" -- attempting to predict future events based on computer simulations. In 1971, Hansen wrote his first climate model, which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent catastrophe.Most research papers are rather dry reading, written to be as unemotional as possible. Not so with Hansen's reports, whose works scream alarmism even in their titles: "Climate Catastrophe," "Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb," and "The Threat to the Planet." Hansen was most recently in the news when an amateur blogger discovered an error in his climate data, a mistake Hansen later discounted as unimportant to the "big picture" of compelling public action on climate change.But who is James Hansen? Is he an impartial researcher seeking scientific truth? Or a political activist with an axe to grind?In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews. Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org | Democracy In Action and other political action groups.Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'"Hansen's office did not return a request from DailyTech for an interview for this article.Update: Hansen has denied receiving direct funding from OSI. Investors Business Daily is standing behind the story, claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media.Update: NASA, James Hansen, and the Politicization of Science3. Disreputable Micael Mann - “inconvenient truth” truth video is based on a fudged hockey stick chart drawn by disreputable Michael Mann who refuses to disclose his data sources. Mann’s work is wrong and broadly impugned by scores of climate scientists documented in this book.book.4. COMMENTSJames Matkin27 Sep 2017 9:03 AMAl Gore is no more than a huckster misleading the public about climate science for political gain. The weak AGW theory demonizing trace amounts of Co2 from fossil fuels is demolished with recent research based on actual results not flawed computer models. Gore's scaremongering hypothesis is no more than "meritless conjectures."Atmospheric scientists Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. Ralph Dlugi, and Dr. Nicole Mölders have just published a paper in the journal Natural Science that exposes the physical and observational shortcomings of the widely-accepted 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation. They conclude that this “thought experiment” is “based on physically irrelevant assumptions and its results considerably disagree with observations“.5. Barack Obama mistruths about Co2 - former US President and leader of Democrats"Of all the many disastrous decisions made by the Obama administration, probably the most dishonest and damaging was the one whereby it branded the harmless trace gas which helps plants to grow as public enemy number one"ABSTRACTBased on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactIt is the sun not green house gases that is the driving force of our climate.THE LAST WORD BY BRITISH HISTORIAN PAUL JOHNSONThe idea that human beings have changed and are changingthe basic climate system of the Earth through their industrialactivities and buming of fossil fuels - the essence of the Greens'theory of global warming - has about as much basis in scienceas Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, isa political theory of actions, demanding compliance withits rulcs"Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof -which history offers so many examples - that people canbe suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they area substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is acreed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science.If people are in need of religion, why don't they just turn to thegenuine article?Paul Johnson, journalist and historian, achieved international bestsellerdom in the 1980s with "Modern Times: The World From the Twenties to the Eighties," one of the most readable works of history ever published . Opening page of Bob Carter’s book, CLIMATE: THE COUNTER CONSENSUS.MARXISM THROUGH CLIMATE REGULATION ON FULL DISPLAY WITH RECENT STUDY IN NATURE.Environmentalists Push Global Wealth RedistributionFEBRUARY 8, 2018By Paul HomewoodThe National Review exposes how environmentalists are pushing global wealth redistribution:The environmental movement wants to make the rich West much poorer so that the destitute can become richer. Rather than improve the plight of the developing world through such crucial projects as constructing an Africa-wide electrical grid, environmentalists say significant progress will have to wait until the improvements can be sustainable–meaning that billions will have to remain mired in poverty to “save the earth.”Having ruled out substantial growth for our destitute brothers and sisters, we are told that we will have to substantially redistribute the wealth of the West to the poor, so that the entire globe can live in a substantially lower (for us) but relatively equal standard of living.In other words, forget creating a world with freedom of opportunity, but tilt at Utopian windmills to force equal outcomes: To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability. That’s certainly the message of a new paper published in Nature.After identifying the criteria for a “good life,” the authors push redistributionism on a global scale. From, “A Good Life for All Within Planetary Boundaries:” (my emphasis):We apply a top-down approach that distributes shares of each planetary boundary among nations based on current population (a per capita biophysical boundary approach). While the environmental justice literature emphasizes the need for differentiated responsibilities in practice, a per capita approach allows us to explore what quality of life could be universally achieved if resources were distributed equally. It is an important question to address given that it is often claimed that all people could live well if only the rich consumed less, so that the poor could consume more.This means limits, limits, limits!Read the full story here.This is the Nature paper’s Abstract:Humanity faces the challenge of how to achieve a high quality of life for over 7 billion people without destabilizing critical planetary processes. Using indicators designed to measure a ‘safe and just’ development space, we quantify the resource use associated with meeting basic human needs, and compare this to downscaled planetary boundaries for over 150 nations. We find that no country meets basic needs for its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use. Physical needs such as nutrition, sanitation, access to electricity and the elimination of extreme poverty could likely be met for all people without transgressing planetary boundaries. However, the universal achievement of more qualitative goals (for example, high life satisfaction) would require a level of resource use that is 2–6 times the sustainable level, based on current relationships. Strategies to improve physical and social provisioning systems, with a focus on sufficiency and equity, have the potential to move nations towards sustainability, but the challenge remains substantial.https://www.nature.com/articles/...Forget about “high life satisfaction” then!There are four authors. Three work at the Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds.The fourth, William Lamb is at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), Berlin.I wonder how much money UK taxpayers are forking out to the University of Leeds, to fund this marxist research?Environmentalists Push Global Wealth Redistributionhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...THE CONVERSATIONIs it possible for everyone to live a good life within our planet’s limits?February 7, 2018 11.51am ESTAuthorDaniel O'Neill Lecturer in Ecological Economics, University of LeedsImagine a country that met the basic needs of its citizens – one where everyone could expect to live a long, healthy, happy and prosperous life. Now imagine that same country was able to do this while using natural resources at a level that would be sustainable even if every other country in the world did the same.Such a country does not exist. Nowhere in the world even comes close. In fact, if everyone on Earth were to lead a good life within our planet’s sustainability limits, the level of resources used to meet basic needs would have to be reduced by a factor of two to six times.These are the sobering findings of research that my colleagues and I have carried out, recently published in the journal Nature Sustainability. In our work, we quantified the national resource use associated with meeting basic needs for a large number of countries, and compared this to what is globally sustainable. We analysed the relationships between seven indicators of national environmental pressure (relative to environmental limits) and 11 indicators of social performance (relative to the requirements for a good life) for over 150 countries.Americans live the ‘good life’ – but at what cost? prochasson frederic / shutterstockThe thresholds we chose to represent a “good life” are far from extravagant – a life satisfaction rating of 6.5 out of 10, living 65 years in good health, the elimination of poverty below the US$1.90 a day line, and so on.Nevertheless, we found that the universal achievement of these goals could push humanity past multiple environmental limits. CO₂ emissions are the toughest limit to stay within, while fresh water use is the easiest (ignoring issues of local water scarcity). Physical needs such as nutrition and sanitation could likely be met for seven billion people, but more aspirational goals, including secondary education and high life satisfaction, could require a level of resource use that is two to six times the sustainable level.Although wealthy nations like the US and UK satisfy the basic needs of their citizens, they do so at a level of resource use that is far beyond what is globally sustainable. In contrast, countries that are using resources at a sustainable level, such as Sri Lanka, fail to meet the basic needs of their people. Worryingly, the more social thresholds that a country achieves, the more biophysical boundaries it tends to transgress.Measures of a ‘good life’ vs overuse of resources for different countries (scaled by population). Ideally, countries would be located in the top-left corner. O'Neill et al, Author providedNo country currently achieves all 11 social thresholds without also exceeding multiple biophysical boundaries. The closest thing we found to an exception was Vietnam, which achieves six of the 11 social thresholds, while only transgressing one of the seven biophysical boundaries (CO₂ emissions).Vietnam has come closest to balancing sustainability with a good life, but still falls short in some areas. O'Neill et al, Author providedTo help communicate the scale of the challenge, we have created an interactive website, which shows the environmental and social performance of all countries. It also allows you to change the values that we chose for a “good life”, and see how these values would affect global sustainability.Time to rethink ‘sustainable development’Our work builds on previous research led by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, which identified nine “planetary boundaries” that – if persistently exceeded – could lead to catastrophic change. The social indicators are closely linked to the high-level objectives from the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. A framework combining both planetary boundaries and social thresholds was proposed by economist Kate Raworth, and is described in her recent book Doughnut Economics (where the “doughnut” refers to the shape of the country plots, such as the one above for Vietnam).Our findings, which show how countries are doing in comparison to Raworth’s framework, present a serious challenge to the “business-as-usual” approach to sustainable development. They suggest that some of the Sustainable Development Goals, such as combating climate change, could be undermined by the pursuit of others, particularly those focused on growth or high levels of human well-being.Interestingly, the relationship between resource use and social performance is almost always a curve with diminishing returns. This curve has a “turning point”, after which using even more resources adds almost nothing to human well-being. Wealthy nations, including the US and UK, are well past the turning point, which means they could substantially reduce the amount of carbon emitted or materials consumed with no loss of well-being. This would in turn free up ecological space for many poorer countries, where an increase in resource use would contribute much more to a good life.If all seven billion or more people are to live well within the limits of our planet, then radical changes are required. At the very least, these include dramatically reducing income inequality and switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy as quickly as possible. But, most importantly, wealthy nations such as the US and UK must move beyond the pursuit of economic growth, which is no longer improving people’s lives in these countries, but is pushing humanity ever closer towards environmental disaster.https://theconversation.com/is-i...Climate Science; A Marxist Trojan HorseAn Informative Interview with István MarkóAnthony Watts / October 28, 2017IS CLIMATE SCIENCE A MARXIST TROJAN HORSE?This interview was published by Breitbart News Network, in an edited version, on 28 October 2017. Here is the complete version.István Markó (1956 – 2017) was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université catholique de Louvain. Prof. Dr. Marko was an outspoken defender of the skeptical view on the issue of human-caused/anthropogenic global warming, appearing in numerous French-language media on the Internet, in public debates and diverse English-language blog postings. He also joined with Anglo-Saxon climate skeptics, publishing several articles together on Breitbart News.Grégoire Canlorbe: Climate activism is thought of as Marxism’s Trojan horse, a way for its followers to proceed with their face masked, in the never-ending holy war that Marxism claims will be necessary to establish communist totalitarianism…Grégoire Canlorbe: Many theories that claim to be scientific amount to an elaboration, more or less rigorous from the logical point of view, more or less robust from the experimental point of view, destined to justify some feelings inherently found in those very theories. Besides, people letting themselves be swayed by their feelings rather than by arguments, the persuasive power of a theory will come essentially from the feelings it expresses—and not from the logico-experimental varnish that covers them.Beyond political interests, what then are the feelings that inspire the anthropogenic global warning thesis and that render it so appealing?István Markó: As a scientist, I naturally hope that I can manage to confine myself into the field of what Vilfredo Pareto used to call the logico-experimental method, and that I do not let myself be skewed, without my knowledge, by feelings interfering with the seriousness of my theories and the validity of my experimentations. But my feelings are very certainly at stake when I examine the militant’s speech about the thesis of anthropogenic warming and the strange influence it exerts on governments and public opinion.To begin, I believe in science: I mean that I believe in the possibility of objectively knowing reality through science. I believe that there are truth and falsehood, that science allows us to distinguish between the two, and that truth must be known; that scientific knowledge must be placed in the hands of the population. I also believe in freedom. I believe that every man is entitled to lead his life and to manage his goods as he sees fit, that he is the only possessor of himself, and that statist socio-economic control is as morally reprehensible as it is harmful in its social, economic, and environmental consequences.I note two things distressing me: firstly, the population is increasingly misinformed scientifically; and secondly, the media and governments take advantage of this to propagate a theory that is doubtful, namely that of anthropogenic warming, and to promote coercive measures on its behalf. Few people take the time to get vital information about the actual CO2footprint; and few people, more generally, are still interested in science. I deeply regret that our Western societies have succeeded in cultivating such mistrust of science: such a reluctance to have confidence in its capacity to know the world objectively and to transform it positively.The theory of anthropogenic warming claims to be scientific; but if people accept this theory, if they hold it to be true, it is clearly not out of interest for science. Such a fragile theory, in view of the CO2 facts I have presented to you above, could never have been accepted by people who truly care about science; and who possess a deep understanding in that field. In my eyes, there are two main reasons—or if you prefer, two main types of feelings—that make people let themselves be seduced by the theory of anthropogenic warming so readily. In the first place, the Catholic religion is in decline in the Western world; and what I call ecologism comes to replace it.In the second place, Westerners have a pronounced taste for self-flagellation; and the theory of anthropogenic warming provides justification for that tendency, possibly anchored in our Judeo-Christian heritage. So, on the one hand, we have religious feelings: faith in a new system of thought, which is ecologism; the veneration of a new divinity, which is benevolent and protective Nature. On the other hand, we have a feeling of guilt, expressed in our conviction that, if the climate warms up, it is our fault; and that if we do not immediately limit our CO2 emissions, we will have sullied and disfigured our planet.Grégoire Canlorbe: The following facts are commonly presented to us as proving the planet is warming, whether it has anything to do with the toxicity of CO2. Firstly, the level of seas and oceans would increase year after year, engulfing entire islands, while the level of glaciers and polar caps would decrease; secondly, temperatures would register a gradual augmentation, while the frequency of extreme weather events and the area affected by droughts would also reach increasingly high levels; thirdly, the resurgence of some diseases such as that of anthrax, in Russia, would follow the return of bacteria freed by thawing of permafrost in the north.Which of those commonly accepted facts do you judge to be substantiated?István Markó: Over the last 12,000 years, what we have witnessed is an oscillation between warm and cold periods, thus periods with rising and declining sea levels. Incontestably, sea and ocean levels have been on the rise since the end of the Little Ice Age that took place approximately from the beginning of the 14th century until the end of the 19th century. At the end of that period, global temperatures started to rise. That being said, the recorded rise is 0.8 degrees Celsius and is, therefore, nothing extraordinary. If the temperature goes up, ocean water obviously dilates and some glaciers recede. This is something glaciers have always done, and not a specificity of our time.Thus, in Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome, (except during a snow storm just before arriving on the Italian plain). Today, you could no longer make Hannibal’s journey. He proved to be capable of such an exploit, precisely because it was warmer in Roman times.Sea levels are currently on the rise; but this is an overestimated phenomenon. The recorded rise is 1.5 millimeters per year, namely 1.5 cm every ten years, and is, therefore, not dramatic at all. Indeed, it does happen that entire islands do get engulfed; but in 99% of the cases, that is due to a classic erosion phenomenon[2] and not to rising sea levels. As far as the Italian city of Venice is concerned, the fact it has been faced with water challenges is not due to any rise of the lagoon level; and is just the manifestation of the sad reality that “the City of the Doges” is sinking under its weight on the marshland. Once again, the global sea and ocean levels are rising; but the threat effectively represented by that phenomenon is far from being tangible. I note that the Tuvalu islands, whose engulfment was previously announced as imminent, not only have not been engulfed, but have seen their own land level rise with respect to that of waters around them.Still another phenomenon we tend to exaggerate is the melting of the polar caps. The quantity of ice in the Arctic has not gone down for 10 years: one may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but on average that level has remained constant. Right after the Little Ice Age, since the temperature went up, the Artic started to melt; but the ice level in the Arctic finally settled down. Besides, ice has been expanding in Antarctica over the last 30 years; and similarly, we observe in Greenland that the quantity of ice increased by 112 million cubic kilometers last year. On a global scale, glaciers account for peanuts, with most of the ice being located in Antarctica and on Greenland. One cannot but notice an almost unchanged ice level over hundreds of years.Many other climate myths and legends exist. From storms to tornados, extreme events are going down all around the world; and when they occur, their level is much lower, too. As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease. But once again, the rise of temperatures shows a magnitude considerably lower with respect to that we currently project.If you look at satellite data and weather balloon measurements, you then note that the temperature rise around the world is relatively modest; that it is much lower than the rise that is predicted for us by authorities, and that these predictions rely on calculations that are highly uncertain. This is because the simulation inputs cannot take into account past temperatures (for which there is no precision data[3]), except by subjectively adjusting x, y, z data that are not always known. The recent temperature spikes measured by satellites and balloons are part of a classic natural phenomenon which is called El Niño. This short-term phenomenon consists of a return of the very warm waters at the surface of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The heat thus liberated in the atmosphere pushes up the global temperature and CO2 plays no role in that process.Another issue I would like to raise: present deserts, far from expanding, are receding; and they are receding due to the higher quantity of CO2available in the air. It turns out that greenhouse operators voluntarily inject three times as much CO2 in the commercial greenhouse as it is present in the atmosphere. The result we can observe is that plants grow faster and are bigger, that they are more resistant to diseases and to destructive insects, and that their photosynthesis is way more efficient and that they therefore consume, less water. Similarly, the rise of CO2level in the atmosphere makes that plants need less water and thus that they can afford to colonize arid regions.Regarding diseases and other weird phenomena hastily attributed to climate warming, there is a website—“globalwarminghoax.com,” if I recall —that collects the different rumors and contemplations on this theme. The fact that masculine fertility decreases; the fact that birds’ wings shrink; the fact that a shark showed up in the North Sea; absolutely anything is likely to be connected to climate change if one displays enough intellectual dishonesty. That is where honest journalists come into play: your role is to investigate on the true reason of phenomena and to demystify the ready-made thinking that financial and political forces ask the media to channel slavishly.Climate-related diseases are relatively rare; and even malaria does not directly depend on the climate, but rather on the way we enable the parasite to reproduce and the mosquito to flourish in the place where we are located. If you find yourself in a swampy area, the odds you will get malaria are high; if you have drained the system and you no longer have that wetland, the odds you will catch the disease are very low. In the end, automatically blaming the resurgence of some disease on climate change comes down to removing the personal responsibility from the people involved: such as denying that their refusal of vaccinations, for instance, or their lack of hygiene, may be part of the problem.THE LAST WORD IS THE POOREST HIT THE HARDESTPoorest households hit hardest by UK climate change levy despite using least energyUK Heat Poverty kills more than road accidents now.This issue really upsets me. I’m not a fan of big government, but green socialists pushing policies which actually hurt poor people seems insanely cruel.As a child and young adult I could always relate to the objectives of my socialist friends – better opportunities, helping the poor and vulnerable – even though as a right winger I thought their policy ideas and methods, their plan to rely on governments to do the right thing, was implausible and counterproductive.Then something monstrous happened – the gentle socialists I knew suddenly stopped caring about the here and now, they became fixated on a hypothetical distant future none of them would ever live to see. They started demanding policies they knew would hurt the people they claimed to care about, but waved away all and any objections in the name of saving the world.March 2, 2018John BarrettProfessor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Leedshttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2018...The UN are guilty of a swindle about human made climate change as they doctored the key scientific working group report in 1995. The sordid story is presented objectively by Bernie Lewin in his book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995. They said we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.11.1 IntroductionPresent shortcomings include Significant uncertainty, by a range of three, regarding* the sensitivity of the global average temperature and mean sea-level to the increase in greenhouse gases,* Even larger uncertainties regarding regional climatic impacts, such that current climate change predictions have little meaning for any particular location,* Uncertainty in the timing ot the expected climate change,* Uncertainty in the natural variationsTo overcome these shortcomings, substantial improvements are required in scientific understanding which will depend on the creative ettorts of individual scientists and groups. Nevertheless the scale of the task demands international coordination and strong national participation.11.2 Problem Areas and Scientific ResponsesTo achieve effective prediction ot the behaviour ot the climate system we must recognize that this system is influenced by a complex array of interacting physical chemical and biological processes The scientific strategy to address these processes must include both observation and modelling. We must be able to understand the mechanisms responsible for past and present variations and to incorporate these mechanisms into suitable models ot the natural system. The models can then be run forward in time to simulate the evolution of the climate system. Such a programme includes three essential step* Analysis of observational data, often obtained from incomplete and indirect measurements, to produce coherent information and understanding,* Application of observational information and under standing to construct and validate time-dependent mathematical models of natural processes,* Running such models forward to produce predictions that can (and must) be tested against observations to determine their "skill" or reliability over relatively short time-periods.https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/...Sadly the IPCC politicians wrote the final report and the “Summary”. The changed completely the intent of the ‘scientists’ doubts. Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this:“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on global climate.”A major mistruth showing the corruption of the UN putting politics and greed above the well being of the public.Man-made global warming is a fiction as we are still in an ice age that must see polar ice melt away and this cannot happen with early and longer winter record snowfall around the world. The snow piles up and the glaciers expand. It is that simple. The reality of our ice age climates is the real danger and fear.CLIMATE CRISIS AUSTRALIA : ‘2019 Is Officially Perisher’s Longest Ski Season In Memory’Posted: September 14, 2019 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Alarmist Predictions, Climate Change, Climatism, Dud predictions, Snow Pack | Tags: Australia, Climate Change, Climatism, CSIRO, Dud Predictions,Global Warming, Perisher, snow, Snow Pack|5 CommentsSNOWFALL will become “A very rare and exciting event…Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel (2000)“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” IPCC (2001)“End of Snow?” NYTimes (2014)“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel (2000)•••FROM a previous ‘conclusion’ about snow, comes a natural introduction…LISTEN to what the ‘experts’ promised you back then. Because, if they got it wrong then, how can you trust what they are foretelling today or tomorrow? The answer is you cannot, because they have no idea what long-range conditions Mother Nature is going to serve up in such a “chaotic” and complex system as our climate.AND, most importantly, does the CSIRO and “97% of all climate experts” still stand by their “end of snow” predictions? Or is their alarmist sophistry simply moreglobal warmingclimate change fear-mongering based on CO2-centric ideology, eco-religious dogma and overheated UN IPCC and CSIRO climate computer models that do not accord with observed reality?‘END OF SNOW’ UPDATE : Natural Snow Depth In Australia The Highest In Two Decades | Climatism*MEANWHILE, Perisher ski resort announces “2019 is officially Perisher’s longest season in memory.”

LEADERS WITH AN ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL AGENDA ARE MOTIVATED TO TELL A STORY OF HALF TRUTHS WITH VIVID METAPHORS TRIGGERS FEAR AND CONCERN IN THE PUBLIC.There is a group think of shared eco-anxiety very much religious or cult like among followers.Dr Tim Ball explained there are several reasons why the public was deceived about the alarmism of Al Gore et al.1. The objective and therefore the science were meditated.2. The scientific focus was deliberately narrowed to CO2.3. From the start unaccountable government agencies were involved and in control.4. Science and political structures and procedures were put in place to enhance the deception.5. Actions were taken to block or divert challenges.6. The people’s natural fears about change and catastrophe were exploited.7. The public’s lack of scientific understanding, especially with regard to climate science, was exploited.8. People find it hard to believe a deception on such a grand scale couldn’t occur.9. Opponents were ruthlessly attacked, causing others to remain silentMAURICE STRONG INVENTED CLIMATE CHANGE. HE WAS A WILY DIPLOMAT AN MULTI-MILLIONAIRE OIL MAN WITH CLOSE TIES TO CHINAThe man who invented climate change was not a scientist but a powerful influencer on the UNITED NATIONS action on the environment as a forum with leverage for a new world government.Therefore, from the start and continuing today the UNIPCC is ok with the pseudo-science of demonizing life giving Co2 ,which has “nothing to do with the environment” because this is the road to global wealth distribution. I am not making this up as these words of Dr. Ottmar Endenhoffer - leading German scientist and IPCC co-chair confirm.Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” As Endenhofer admits the environment is second fiddle as the helps us understand the alarmists willingness to go along with fudged data and ‘phony science.’“No matter if the science is all phony; there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of CanadaThat Paris conference agenda got a useful boost from U.S. government agency scientists at NASA and NOAA who conveniently provided “warmest years ever” claims. Both have histories of stirring overheated global warming stew pots with alarming and statistically indefensible claims of recent “record high” temperatures.http://www.climatedepot.com/2017...In a farewell piece on Strong’s passing in 2015 Booker summarizes the amazing role of Strong in creating the UN IPCC.Farewell to the man who invented 'climate change’by Christopher Booker 2015During the Second World War, having emerged from humble origins in the Great Depression, Strong became convinced that the new United Nations should become a world government, dedicated to ensuring that the wealth enjoyed by the richer countries of the West should be spread out around the world’s underprivileged majority.Maurice Strong: he established the UN’s environmental agenda (Canadian Press/AP)In the Sixties, having become very rich himself from Canada’s oil industry, Strong came to see that the key to his vision was “environmentalism”, the one cause the UN could harness to make itself a truly powerful world government.A superb political operator, in 1972 he set up a UN “Environment Conference” in Stockholm, to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind. They should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries, at the expense of poorer countries across the globe.To pursue this, he became founding director of a new agency, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and in the Eighties he took up the cause of a tiny group of international meteorologists who had come to believe that the world faced catastrophic warming. In 1988, UNEP sponsored this little group into setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).In 1992, now allied with the IPCC, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he set up another new body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to stage that colossal “Earth Summit” over which he presided in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.It is the UNFCCC which in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris. And all along it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process, centred on the principle that the richer developed countries must pay for a problem they created, to the financial benefit of all those “developing countries” that have been its main victimsIn 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao. It was from there that he returned home to Canada to die,on November 27.The scientists behind the issue were on a mission and misbehaved by fudging the data to make the climate seem warmer than it was. As soon as the politicians like Al Gore usurped the science they declared a fake consensus demanding public acceptance that the science is settled not open to debate."Strong’s dream is more than ever falling apart"But the wonderful irony is that the reason why Paris will fail, like Copenhagen before it, is that those “developing countries”, led by China and India – now the world’s first and third largest “CO2 emitters” – have not the slightest intention of curbing their emissions. It is for the West to do that, for creating “the problem”. Thus, just as he died, Strong’s dream is more than ever falling apart – thanks to those very countries his socialist vision was intended to help.Farewell to the man who invented 'climate change'ChinaThe President of China, Hu Jin Tao, greets Maurice StrongStrong, from his earliest days, had a deep interest in and fascination for China and has been going to China for more than 40 years in various capacities, personal, United Nations, World Bank and business.He now spends most of his time there and is active as an advisor and business relationships in the environment, energy, and technology sectors. His principal activities are centered at Peking University, where he is an active Honorary Professor, as well as Honorary Chairman of its Environmental Foundation and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Research on Security and Sustainability for Northeast Asia, following up on his experience with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).Indeed, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, near the end of his term, paid the following tribute to Strong:“Looking back on our time together, we have shared many trials and tribulations and I am grateful that I had the benefit of your global vision and wise counsel on many critical issues, not least the delicate question of the Korean Peninsula and China’s changing role in the world. Your unwavering commitment to the environment, multilateralism and peaceful resolution of conflicts is especially appreciated.”Judith Curry Blog ‘POLITICIZING THE IPCC REPORT’In the global debate about climate change and energy policy, science is increasingly becoming a side show, and used when it is convenient to justify a politically desirable policy. Well, that is politics. I have two concerns:1. ‘Using’ climate science in this way has a very unfortunate impact on climate science itself: ‘inconvenient’ questions don’t get asked and inconvenient science doesn’t get funded.2. If people are concerned about the adverse impacts of extreme weather events, reducing CO2 emissions are not going to have any impact on policy relevant time scales, even if you accept the IPCC analyses. Resources expended on energy policy are in direct conflict with reducing vulnerability to extreme events.242 RESPONSES TO “POLITICIZING THE IPCC REPORT”Paul Matthews | July 29, 2014 at 1:15 pm |One point that is important to make for the US audience is that here in the UK, although it is politicised, the climate debate does not divide sharply along party lines in the way it does in the US. Of the two dissidents, one is Conservative (Lilley) but the other is Labour (Stringer). One thing these two have in common is a degree in a science subject, unlike the other committee members. Thanks for the link!Jeffn | July 29, 2014 at 4:04 pm |That is an interesting point that is raised often. I wonder, however, how much of that fact is simple political survival. Both parties in the UK endorsed policy that has proven to be simultaneously extraordinarily expensive and useless. To have to admit that and acknowledge that the scare story used to sell the bad policy is overblown would be political suicide. The short version of this “report” is MPs Claim: We Aren’t Totally Incompetent, We Really Did Have a Reason to Wreck The Nation’s Energy Policy!The Toles cartoon is a classic of warmist hypocrisy. The warm constantly parley every hot day or storm into “proof” or “evidence” of AGW, yet when their own meme is thrown in their faces in a cold snap, they pat each other on the back over how clever they are to point out the dupes who can’t tell the difference between weather and climate. No doubt it raises a weak cheer from the faithful, but nobody else is buying it.rls | July 29, 2014 at 5:14 pm |I think it is the opposite in the US. The plurality is against big spending to reign in CO2 emissions. When Obama’s party had control of both chambers of congress he could not get Cap and Trade passed.Hugh Whalen | July 29, 2014 at 1:42 pm |The whole IPCC/AGW seems to me to correspond to this:Question: Do you agree that crime is a problem?Answer: 97% of the populations says: YES!Conclusion: 97% of the population supports the death penalty. It must be instituted immediately. Sigh.David Wojick | July 29, 2014 at 1:56 pm |An excellent analogy, Hugh. 97% think humans have made some contribution to the past warming (if only UHI). Then it is claimed that they therefore support drastic decarbonization efforts. This is the way political arguments often work, or try to.Turnedoutnice | July 29, 2014 at 1:53 pm |it looks very much as if the final obstacle to progression along the path of sanity has been overcome. It is the acceptance that the explanation of the ‘hiatus’ aka ‘pause’ by natural cooling processes, countering the GHE, implies that natural heating processes contributed to the previous http://warming.So far so good; Latif argues that the IPCC’s CO2 ‘Climate Sensitivity’ has been far too high: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/...However, there is much further to go; the reality is that solar processes account for most if not all of the post 1710 warming: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co...CO2 Climate Sensitivity may be very low indeed and it is easy to show how……..UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warmingMICHAEL BASTASCH12:08 PM 01/15/2014Play VideoUnited Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”>Al Gore, former US presidential candidate and now the apopalytic, big Democrat climate huckster is most responsible for the politicalization of climate science. Sadly, Gore used poor judgment in choosing his science colleagues. Gore relied mostly on the ravings of former NASA scientist and “loose cannon” Dr. James Hansen. He is an astronomer, the great apoloptic exaggerator. He is under ethics cloud for million dollar personal awards. Also Gore embraced the disreputable Michael Mann, junior scientist and author of the fake hockey stick graph that erased accepted climate history. Barack Obama became Gore’s political supporter and crusader willing to mislabel life giving, non toxic Co2 as pollution for the cause.Al Gore’s dirty tricks (phony science is ok with him.)National Post (Latest Edition)1 Aug 2017 Alex EpsteinAlex Epstein is author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.Al Gore with former mayor of Tacloban City Alfred Romualdez and Typhoon Haiyan survivor Demi Raya.The more than seven billion people living in the world today need affordable, abundant energy — and a livable climate — to flourish. But the world’s leading source of energy is also the leading source of increasing greenhouse gases.What to do? This is the vital question Al Gore took on in his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, and takes on again in his newly released follow- up An Inconvenient Sequel.As the most influential figure in the international climate conversation, Gore has a responsibility to give us the whole picture of fossil fuels’ impacts — both their benefits and the risks they pose to humans flourishing. Unfortunately, Gore has given us a deeply biased picture that completely ignores fossil fuels’ indispensable benefits and wildly exaggerates their impact on climate.The running theme throughout An Inconvenient Sequel is that Gore’s first film was even more right than he expected. The movie begins with defenders of fossil fuels mocking or ignoring the dramatic predictions of An Inconvenient Truth. Leaving aside a heroic (and highly disputed) portrayal of Gore rescuing the Paris climate accord, the rest of the movie focuses on vindicating Gore’s two chief predictions: 1) That we could replace fossil fuels with cheap solar- and windpowered “renewables”; and 2) that continued use of fossil fuels would lead to catastrophic temperature rises, catastrophic sea- level rises, catastrophic flooding, catastrophic drought, catastrophic storms, and catastrophic disease proliferation.To justify these claims, Gore makes extensive uses of anecdotes: he shows us the town of Georgetown, Texas, and its use of 100-percent renewable energy, a deadly heat wave in India, a deadly flood in Miami, a deadly drought in Syria, a deadly storm in the Philippines, and the Zika virus penetrating t he United States.Some of his anecdotes are meant to prove that cheap solar and wind are, as 2006 Gore prophesied, quickly dominating t he world’s energy supply and, as 2006 Gore also warned us, that our rapidly warming climate is killing more and more people each year. But he has not given us the whole picture.Take the rising dominance of solar and wind, which is used to paint supporters of fossil fuels as troglodytes, fools, and shills for Big Oil. The combined share of world energy consumption from renewables is all of two per cent. And it’s an expensive, unreliable, and therefore difficult-to-scale two per cent.Because solar and wind are “unreliables,” they need to be backed up by reliable sources of power, usually fossil fuels, or sometimes non-carbon sources including nuclear and large- scale hydro power (all of which Gore and other environmentalists refuse to support). This is why every grid that incorporates significant solar and wind has more expensive electricity. Germans, on the hook for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s self- righteous anticarbon commitments, are already paying three times the rates for electricity that Americans do.Stories about “100- percent renewable” locations like Georgetown, Texas, are not just anecdotal evidence, they are lies. The Texas grid f rom which Georgetown draws its electricity is comprised of 43.7 per cent natural gas, 28.8 per cent coal, 12 per cent nuclear, and only 15.6 per cent renewable. Using a virtue- signall i ng gimmick pioneered by Apple, Facebook, and Google, Georgetown pays its state utility to label its grid electricity “renewable” — even though it draws its power from that fossil- fuel heavy Texas grid — while tarring others on the grid as “non-renewable.”If we look at the overall trends instead of engaging in anecdotal manipulation we see that fossil fuel energy is the fastest-growing energy source in the world — still. Fossil fuels have never been more vital to human flour ishing. There are 1,600 coal Advances in technology are making fossil fuels cleaner, safer, and more efficient than ever. To reduce their growth let alone to radically restrict their use — which is what Gore advocates — means forcing energy poverty on billions of people.Gore and others should be free to make the case that the danger of greenhouse gases is so serious as to warrant that scale of human misery. But they should have to quantify and justify the magnitude of climate danger. And that brings us to the truth about climate.The overall trend in climate danger is that it is at an all-time low. The Emergency Events Database ( EM- DAT) shows 6,114 climate- related deaths in 2016. In other recent years the numbers have maxed out in the tens of thousands. Compare this to the 1930s when, adjusted for population, climate- related deaths hit the 10- million mark several times.The most s i gnificant cause of our radically reduced climate danger is industrial development, which takes a naturally dangerous climate and makes it unnaturally safe. And industrial development is driven by cheap, plentiful, reliable energy — which, today, overwhelmingly means fossil fuels. Climate will always be dangerous so priority number one is to have the energy and development to tame it. Modern irrigation, residential heating and air conditioning have made once uninhabitable places perfectly comfortable.Gore’s Inconvenient Sequel gives a biased, selfserving, and convenient picture of fossil fuels and climate — convenient for Gore’s legacy, that is, but inconvenient for the billions his energy poverty policies will harm. As citizens, we must start demanding responsible thought leaders who will give us the whole picture that life- and- death energy and climate decisions require.When the UNIPCC first published their radical unproven theory about fossil fuel emissions of Co2 they demanded “the science is settled.” Their supporters refused to debate and attacked skeptics personally. The UN head said this issue was his ‘religion’ so it has become a matter of politics and belief not science.2. Dr. James Hansen is a lead IPCC scientist who conspired to fudge climate data to make the past look colder and present look warmer.“But in the year 2000, NASA and NOAA altered the historical US temperature record, which now shows that there was about one degree centigrade US warming during the century before 1989.The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.Hansen’s recent temperature data tampering is not limited to the US. He has done the same thing all over the planet. Below is one recent example in Iceland, where he dramatically cooled the first half of the century, and warmed the present. He appears to be trying to erase evidence that there was a very warm period in much of the Arctic around 1940.Hansen has never provided any evidence to support the idea that skeptics are either well funded or intentionally misleading the public, yet he frequently repeats this claim.Dr. Hansen has suggested that fossil fuel corporation CEOs are intentionally committing high crimes against the planet – because they don’t believe his spectacularly failed mispredictions.”Hansen went on to say: “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”James Hansen: Try Fossil Fuel CEOs For ‘High Crimes Against HumanityAdditionally Dr. Hansen has been arrested several times for committing crimes in “defense of the planet”.‘Without Hansen’s bold move into massive data tampering, the global warming scam would have been dead decades ago. Hansen quickly learned that he could use the trust NASA had built up during the Apollo program as cover to turn cooling into warming. All things become possible once a scientist makes the move into data tampering and fraud.’Make no mistake about it, the people behind this scam are criminals – not scientists. They have nothing but failed predictions and fraud in their past and present.http://climatechangedispatch.com...NASA. JAMES HANSEN, AND THE POLITICALIZATION OF SCIENCENew issues swirl around controversial NASA branchNASA's primary climate monitoring agency is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Operating out of a small office at Columbia University, GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen. Official NASA climate statements come through GISS ... which means they must get by Hansen. Many other scientists and agencies make climate predictions, but Hansen's top the list for scare factor, predicting consequences considerably more dire than his colleagues.Hansen specializes in climate "modeling" -- attempting to predict future events based on computer simulations. In 1971, Hansen wrote his first climate model, which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent catastrophe.Most research papers are rather dry reading, written to be as unemotional as possible. Not so with Hansen's reports, whose works scream alarmism even in their titles: "Climate Catastrophe," "Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb," and "The Threat to the Planet." Hansen was most recently in the news when an amateur blogger discovered an error in his climate data, a mistake Hansen later discounted as unimportant to the "big picture" of compelling public action on climate change.But who is James Hansen? Is he an impartial researcher seeking scientific truth? Or a political activist with an axe to grind?In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews. Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org | Democracy In Action and other political action groups.Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'"Hansen's office did not return a request from DailyTech for an interview for this article.Update: Hansen has denied receiving direct funding from OSI. Investors Business Daily is standing behind the story, claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media.Update: NASA, James Hansen, and the Politicization of Science3. Disreputable Micael Mann - “inconvenient truth” truth video is based on a fudged hockey stick chart drawn by disreputable Michael Mann who refuses to disclose his data sources. Mann’s work is wrong and broadly impugned by scores of climate scientists documented in this book.4. COMMENTSJames Matkin27 Sep 2017 9:03 AMAl Gore is no more than a huckster misleading the public about climate science for political gain. The weak AGW theory demonizing trace amounts of Co2 from fossil fuels is demolished with recent research based on actual results not flawed computer models. Gore's scaremongering hypothesis is no more than "meritless conjectures."Atmospheric scientists Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. Ralph Dlugi, and Dr. Nicole Mölders have just published a paper in the journal Natural Science that exposes the physical and observational shortcomings of the widely-accepted 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation. They conclude that this “thought experiment” is “based on physically irrelevant assumptions and its results considerably disagree with observations“.5. Barack Obama mistruths about Co2 - former US President and leader of Democrats"Of all the many disastrous decisions made by the Obama administration, probably the most dishonest and damaging was the one whereby it branded the harmless trace gas which helps plants to grow as public enemy number one"ABSTRACTBased on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactIt is the sun not green house gases that is the driving force of our climate.THE LAST WORD BY BRITISH HISTORIAN PAUL JOHNSONThe idea that human beings have changed and are changingthe basic climate system of the Earth through their industrialactivities and buming of fossil fuels - the essence of the Greens'theory of global warming - has about as much basis in scienceas Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, isa political theory of actions, demanding compliance withits rulcs"Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof -which history offers so many examples - that people canbe suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they area substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is acreed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science.If people are in need of religion, why don't they just turn to thegenuine article?Paul Johnson, journalist and historian, achieved international bestsellerdom in the 1980s with "Modern Times: The World From the Twenties to the Eighties," one of the most readable works of history ever published . Opening page of Bob Carter’s book, CLIMATE: THE COUNTER CONSENSUS.MARXISM THROUGH CLIMATE REGULATION ON FULL DISPLAY WITH RECENT STUDY IN NATURE.Environmentalists Push Global Wealth RedistributionFEBRUARY 8, 2018By Paul HomewoodThe National Review exposes how environmentalists are pushing global wealth redistribution:The environmental movement wants to make the rich West much poorer so that the destitute can become richer. Rather than improve the plight of the developing world through such crucial projects as constructing an Africa-wide electrical grid, environmentalists say significant progress will have to wait until the improvements can be sustainable–meaning that billions will have to remain mired in poverty to “save the earth.”Having ruled out substantial growth for our destitute brothers and sisters, we are told that we will have to substantially redistribute the wealth of the West to the poor, so that the entire globe can live in a substantially lower (for us) but relatively equal standard of living.In other words, forget creating a world with freedom of opportunity, but tilt at Utopian windmills to force equal outcomes: To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability. That’s certainly the message of a new paper published in Nature.After identifying the criteria for a “good life,” the authors push redistributionism on a global scale. From, “A Good Life for All Within Planetary Boundaries:” (my emphasis):We apply a top-down approach that distributes shares of each planetary boundary among nations based on current population (a per capita biophysical boundary approach). While the environmental justice literature emphasizes the need for differentiated responsibilities in practice, a per capita approach allows us to explore what quality of life could be universally achieved if resources were distributed equally. It is an important question to address given that it is often claimed that all people could live well if only the rich consumed less, so that the poor could consume more.This means limits, limits, limits!Read the full story here.This is the Nature paper’s Abstract:Humanity faces the challenge of how to achieve a high quality of life for over 7 billion people without destabilizing critical planetary processes. Using indicators designed to measure a ‘safe and just’ development space, we quantify the resource use associated with meeting basic human needs, and compare this to downscaled planetary boundaries for over 150 nations. We find that no country meets basic needs for its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use. Physical needs such as nutrition, sanitation, access to electricity and the elimination of extreme poverty could likely be met for all people without transgressing planetary boundaries. However, the universal achievement of more qualitative goals (for example, high life satisfaction) would require a level of resource use that is 2–6 times the sustainable level, based on current relationships. Strategies to improve physical and social provisioning systems, with a focus on sufficiency and equity, have the potential to move nations towards sustainability, but the challenge remains substantial.https://www.nature.com/articles/...Forget about “high life satisfaction” then!There are four authors. Three work at the Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds.The fourth, William Lamb is at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), Berlin.I wonder how much money UK taxpayers are forking out to the University of Leeds, to fund this marxist research?Environmentalists Push Global Wealth Redistributionhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...THE CONVERSATIONIs it possible for everyone to live a good life within our planet’s limits?February 7, 2018 11.51am ESTAuthorDaniel O'Neill Lecturer in Ecological Economics, University of LeedsImagine a country that met the basic needs of its citizens – one where everyone could expect to live a long, healthy, happy and prosperous life. Now imagine that same country was able to do this while using natural resources at a level that would be sustainable even if every other country in the world did the same.Such a country does not exist. Nowhere in the world even comes close. In fact, if everyone on Earth were to lead a good life within our planet’s sustainability limits, the level of resources used to meet basic needs would have to be reduced by a factor of two to six times.These are the sobering findings of research that my colleagues and I have carried out, recently published in the journal Nature Sustainability. In our work, we quantified the national resource use associated with meeting basic needs for a large number of countries, and compared this to what is globally sustainable. We analysed the relationships between seven indicators of national environmental pressure (relative to environmental limits) and 11 indicators of social performance (relative to the requirements for a good life) for over 150 countries.Americans live the ‘good life’ – but at what cost? prochasson frederic / shutterstockThe thresholds we chose to represent a “good life” are far from extravagant – a life satisfaction rating of 6.5 out of 10, living 65 years in good health, the elimination of poverty below the US$1.90 a day line, and so on.Nevertheless, we found that the universal achievement of these goals could push humanity past multiple environmental limits. CO₂ emissions are the toughest limit to stay within, while fresh water use is the easiest (ignoring issues of local water scarcity). Physical needs such as nutrition and sanitation could likely be met for seven billion people, but more aspirational goals, including secondary education and high life satisfaction, could require a level of resource use that is two to six times the sustainable level.Although wealthy nations like the US and UK satisfy the basic needs of their citizens, they do so at a level of resource use that is far beyond what is globally sustainable. In contrast, countries that are using resources at a sustainable level, such as Sri Lanka, fail to meet the basic needs of their people. Worryingly, the more social thresholds that a country achieves, the more biophysical boundaries it tends to transgress.Measures of a ‘good life’ vs overuse of resources for different countries (scaled by population). Ideally, countries would be located in the top-left corner. O'Neill et al, Author providedNo country currently achieves all 11 social thresholds without also exceeding multiple biophysical boundaries. The closest thing we found to an exception was Vietnam, which achieves six of the 11 social thresholds, while only transgressing one of the seven biophysical boundaries (CO₂ emissions).Vietnam has come closest to balancing sustainability with a good life, but still falls short in some areas. O'Neill et al, Author providedTo help communicate the scale of the challenge, we have created an interactive website, which shows the environmental and social performance of all countries. It also allows you to change the values that we chose for a “good life”, and see how these values would affect global sustainability.Time to rethink ‘sustainable development’Our work builds on previous research led by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, which identified nine “planetary boundaries” that – if persistently exceeded – could lead to catastrophic change. The social indicators are closely linked to the high-level objectives from the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. A framework combining both planetary boundaries and social thresholds was proposed by economist Kate Raworth, and is described in her recent book Doughnut Economics (where the “doughnut” refers to the shape of the country plots, such as the one above for Vietnam).Our findings, which show how countries are doing in comparison to Raworth’s framework, present a serious challenge to the “business-as-usual” approach to sustainable development. They suggest that some of the Sustainable Development Goals, such as combating climate change, could be undermined by the pursuit of others, particularly those focused on growth or high levels of human well-being.Interestingly, the relationship between resource use and social performance is almost always a curve with diminishing returns. This curve has a “turning point”, after which using even more resources adds almost nothing to human well-being. Wealthy nations, including the US and UK, are well past the turning point, which means they could substantially reduce the amount of carbon emitted or materials consumed with no loss of well-being. This would in turn free up ecological space for many poorer countries, where an increase in resource use would contribute much more to a good life.If all seven billion or more people are to live well within the limits of our planet, then radical changes are required. At the very least, these include dramatically reducing income inequality and switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy as quickly as possible. But, most importantly, wealthy nations such as the US and UK must move beyond the pursuit of economic growth, which is no longer improving people’s lives in these countries, but is pushing humanity ever closer towards environmental disaster.https://theconversation.com/is-i...Climate Science; A Marxist Trojan HorseAn Informative Interview with István MarkóAnthony Watts / October 28, 2017IS CLIMATE SCIENCE A MARXIST TROJAN HORSE?This interview was published by Breitbart News Network, in an edited version, on 28 October 2017. Here is the complete version.István Markó (1956 – 2017) was a professor and researcher in organic chemistry at the Université catholique de Louvain. Prof. Dr. Marko was an outspoken defender of the skeptical view on the issue of human-caused/anthropogenic global warming, appearing in numerous French-language media on the Internet, in public debates and diverse English-language blog postings. He also joined with Anglo-Saxon climate skeptics, publishing several articles together on Breitbart News.Grégoire Canlorbe: Climate activism is thought of as Marxism’s Trojan horse, a way for its followers to proceed with their face masked, in the never-ending holy war that Marxism claims will be necessary to establish communist totalitarianism…Grégoire Canlorbe: Many theories that claim to be scientific amount to an elaboration, more or less rigorous from the logical point of view, more or less robust from the experimental point of view, destined to justify some feelings inherently found in those very theories. Besides, people letting themselves be swayed by their feelings rather than by arguments, the persuasive power of a theory will come essentially from the feelings it expresses—and not from the logico-experimental varnish that covers them.Beyond political interests, what then are the feelings that inspire the anthropogenic global warning thesis and that render it so appealing?István Markó: As a scientist, I naturally hope that I can manage to confine myself into the field of what Vilfredo Pareto used to call the logico-experimental method, and that I do not let myself be skewed, without my knowledge, by feelings interfering with the seriousness of my theories and the validity of my experimentations. But my feelings are very certainly at stake when I examine the militant’s speech about the thesis of anthropogenic warming and the strange influence it exerts on governments and public opinion.To begin, I believe in science: I mean that I believe in the possibility of objectively knowing reality through science. I believe that there are truth and falsehood, that science allows us to distinguish between the two, and that truth must be known; that scientific knowledge must be placed in the hands of the population. I also believe in freedom. I believe that every man is entitled to lead his life and to manage his goods as he sees fit, that he is the only possessor of himself, and that statist socio-economic control is as morally reprehensible as it is harmful in its social, economic, and environmental consequences.I note two things distressing me: firstly, the population is increasingly misinformed scientifically; and secondly, the media and governments take advantage of this to propagate a theory that is doubtful, namely that of anthropogenic warming, and to promote coercive measures on its behalf. Few people take the time to get vital information about the actual CO2footprint; and few people, more generally, are still interested in science. I deeply regret that our Western societies have succeeded in cultivating such mistrust of science: such a reluctance to have confidence in its capacity to know the world objectively and to transform it positively.The theory of anthropogenic warming claims to be scientific; but if people accept this theory, if they hold it to be true, it is clearly not out of interest for science. Such a fragile theory, in view of the CO2 facts I have presented to you above, could never have been accepted by people who truly care about science; and who possess a deep understanding in that field. In my eyes, there are two main reasons—or if you prefer, two main types of feelings—that make people let themselves be seduced by the theory of anthropogenic warming so readily. In the first place, the Catholic religion is in decline in the Western world; and what I call ecologism comes to replace it.In the second place, Westerners have a pronounced taste for self-flagellation; and the theory of anthropogenic warming provides justification for that tendency, possibly anchored in our Judeo-Christian heritage. So, on the one hand, we have religious feelings: faith in a new system of thought, which is ecologism; the veneration of a new divinity, which is benevolent and protective Nature. On the other hand, we have a feeling of guilt, expressed in our conviction that, if the climate warms up, it is our fault; and that if we do not immediately limit our CO2 emissions, we will have sullied and disfigured our planet.Grégoire Canlorbe: The following facts are commonly presented to us as proving the planet is warming, whether it has anything to do with the toxicity of CO2. Firstly, the level of seas and oceans would increase year after year, engulfing entire islands, while the level of glaciers and polar caps would decrease; secondly, temperatures would register a gradual augmentation, while the frequency of extreme weather events and the area affected by droughts would also reach increasingly high levels; thirdly, the resurgence of some diseases such as that of anthrax, in Russia, would follow the return of bacteria freed by thawing of permafrost in the north.Which of those commonly accepted facts do you judge to be substantiated?István Markó: Over the last 12,000 years, what we have witnessed is an oscillation between warm and cold periods, thus periods with rising and declining sea levels. Incontestably, sea and ocean levels have been on the rise since the end of the Little Ice Age that took place approximately from the beginning of the 14th century until the end of the 19th century. At the end of that period, global temperatures started to rise. That being said, the recorded rise is 0.8 degrees Celsius and is, therefore, nothing extraordinary. If the temperature goes up, ocean water obviously dilates and some glaciers recede. This is something glaciers have always done, and not a specificity of our time.Thus, in Ancient Roman times, glaciers were much smaller than the ones we know nowadays. I invite the reader to look at the documents dating back to the days of Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with his elephants because he did not encounter ice on his way to Rome, (except during a snow storm just before arriving on the Italian plain). Today, you could no longer make Hannibal’s journey. He proved to be capable of such an exploit, precisely because it was warmer in Roman times.Sea levels are currently on the rise; but this is an overestimated phenomenon. The recorded rise is 1.5 millimeters per year, namely 1.5 cm every ten years, and is, therefore, not dramatic at all. Indeed, it does happen that entire islands do get engulfed; but in 99% of the cases, that is due to a classic erosion phenomenon[2] and not to rising sea levels. As far as the Italian city of Venice is concerned, the fact it has been faced with water challenges is not due to any rise of the lagoon level; and is just the manifestation of the sad reality that “the City of the Doges” is sinking under its weight on the marshland. Once again, the global sea and ocean levels are rising; but the threat effectively represented by that phenomenon is far from being tangible. I note that the Tuvalu islands, whose engulfment was previously announced as imminent, not only have not been engulfed, but have seen their own land level rise with respect to that of waters around them.Still another phenomenon we tend to exaggerate is the melting of the polar caps. The quantity of ice in the Arctic has not gone down for 10 years: one may well witness, from one year to the other, ice level fluctuations, but on average that level has remained constant. Right after the Little Ice Age, since the temperature went up, the Artic started to melt; but the ice level in the Arctic finally settled down. Besides, ice has been expanding in Antarctica over the last 30 years; and similarly, we observe in Greenland that the quantity of ice increased by 112 million cubic kilometers last year. On a global scale, glaciers account for peanuts, with most of the ice being located in Antarctica and on Greenland. One cannot but notice an almost unchanged ice level over hundreds of years.Many other climate myths and legends exist. From storms to tornados, extreme events are going down all around the world; and when they occur, their level is much lower, too. As explained by MIT physicist Richard Lindzen, the reduction of the temperature differential between the north hemisphere and the equatorial part of our planet makes cyclonic energy much smaller: the importance and frequency of extreme events thus tend to decrease. But once again, the rise of temperatures shows a magnitude considerably lower with respect to that we currently project.If you look at satellite data and weather balloon measurements, you then note that the temperature rise around the world is relatively modest; that it is much lower than the rise that is predicted for us by authorities, and that these predictions rely on calculations that are highly uncertain. This is because the simulation inputs cannot take into account past temperatures (for which there is no precision data[3]), except by subjectively adjusting x, y, z data that are not always known. The recent temperature spikes measured by satellites and balloons are part of a classic natural phenomenon which is called El Niño. This short-term phenomenon consists of a return of the very warm waters at the surface of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. The heat thus liberated in the atmosphere pushes up the global temperature and CO2 plays no role in that process.Another issue I would like to raise: present deserts, far from expanding, are receding; and they are receding due to the higher quantity of CO2available in the air. It turns out that greenhouse operators voluntarily inject three times as much CO2 in the commercial greenhouse as it is present in the atmosphere. The result we can observe is that plants grow faster and are bigger, that they are more resistant to diseases and to destructive insects, and that their photosynthesis is way more efficient and that they therefore consume, less water. Similarly, the rise of CO2level in the atmosphere makes that plants need less water and thus that they can afford to colonize arid regions.Regarding diseases and other weird phenomena hastily attributed to climate warming, there is a website—“globalwarminghoax.com,” if I recall —that collects the different rumors and contemplations on this theme. The fact that masculine fertility decreases; the fact that birds’ wings shrink; the fact that a shark showed up in the North Sea; absolutely anything is likely to be connected to climate change if one displays enough intellectual dishonesty. That is where honest journalists come into play: your role is to investigate on the true reason of phenomena and to demystify the ready-made thinking that financial and political forces ask the media to channel slavishly.Climate-related diseases are relatively rare; and even malaria does not directly depend on the climate, but rather on the way we enable the parasite to reproduce and the mosquito to flourish in the place where we are located. If you find yourself in a swampy area, the odds you will get malaria are high; if you have drained the system and you no longer have that wetland, the odds you will catch the disease are very low. In the end, automatically blaming the resurgence of some disease on climate change comes down to removing the personal responsibility from the people involved: such as denying that their refusal of vaccinations, for instance, or their lack of hygiene, may be part of the problem.THE LAST WORD IS THE POOREST HIT THE HARDESTPoorest households hit hardest by UK climate change levy despite using least energyUK Heat Poverty kills more than road accidents now.This issue really upsets me. I’m not a fan of big government, but green socialists pushing policies which actually hurt poor people seems insanely cruel.As a child and young adult I could always relate to the objectives of my socialist friends – better opportunities, helping the poor and vulnerable – even though as a right winger I thought their policy ideas and methods, their plan to rely on governments to do the right thing, was implausible and counterproductive.Then something monstrous happened – the gentle socialists I knew suddenly stopped caring about the here and now, they became fixated on a hypothetical distant future none of them would ever live to see. They started demanding policies they knew would hurt the people they claimed to care about, but waved away all and any objections in the name of saving the world.March 2, 2018John BarrettProfessor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Leedshttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2018...

Yes. The man who invented climate change was not a scientist, he was rather a big government ideologue and socialist. The Father of Climate Change is Maurice Strong, a Canadian multimillionaire passionate about the environment and the role of the United Nations, not in science but in wealth distribution. As a result Maurice skillfully taped on weak climate change science attacking fossil fuels to form the leverage for a new world government.Therefore, from the start and continuing today the UNIPCC is ok with the pseudo-science of demonizing life giving Co2 ,which has “nothing to do with the environment” because this is the road to global wealth distribution. I am not making this up as these words of Dr. Ottmar Endenhoffer - leading German scientist and IPCC co-chair confirm.Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” As Endenhofer admits the environment is second fiddle as the helps us understand the alarmists willingness to go along with fudged data and ‘phony science.’“No matter if the science is all phony; there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of CanadaThat Paris conference agenda got a useful boost from U.S. government agency scientists at NASA and NOAA who conveniently provided “warmest years ever” claims. Both have histories of stirring overheated global warming stew pots with alarming and statistically indefensible claims of recent “record high” temperatures.http://www.climatedepot.com/2017...In a farewell piece on Strong’s passing in 2015 Booker summarizes the amazing role of Strong in creating the UN IPCC.Farewell to the man who invented 'climate change’by Christopher Booker 2015During the Second World War, having emerged from humble origins in the Great Depression, Strong became convinced that the new United Nations should become a world government, dedicated to ensuring that the wealth enjoyed by the richer countries of the West should be spread out around the world’s underprivileged majority.Maurice Strong: he established the UN?s environmental agenda (Canadian Press/AP)In the Sixties, having become very rich himself from Canada’s oil industry, Strong came to see that the key to his vision was “environmentalism”, the one cause the UN could harness to make itself a truly powerful world government.A superb political operator, in 1972 he set up a UN “Environment Conference” in Stockholm, to declare that the Earth’s resources were the common inheritance of all mankind. They should no longer be exploited for the benefit of only a few countries, at the expense of poorer countries across the globe.To pursue this, he became founding director of a new agency, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and in the Eighties he took up the cause of a tiny group of international meteorologists who had come to believe that the world faced catastrophic warming. In 1988, UNEP sponsored this little group into setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).In 1992, now allied with the IPCC, Strong pulled off his greatest coup when he set up another new body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to stage that colossal “Earth Summit” over which he presided in Rio, arranging for it to be attended not only by 108 world leaders and 100,000 others but also by 20,000 UN-funded “green activists”.It is the UNFCCC which in effect has dictated the global climate change agenda ever since. Almost yearly it has staged huge conferences, notably those at Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and the present one in Paris. And all along it has been Strong’s ideology, enshrined at Rio in “Agenda 21”, which has continued to shape the entire process, centred on the principle that the richer developed countries must pay for a problem they created, to the financial benefit of all those “developing countries” that have been its main victimsIn 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao. It was from there that he returned home to Canada to die,on November 27.The scientists behind the issue were on a mission and misbehaved by fudging the data to make the climate seem warmer than it was. As soon as the politicians like Al Gore usurped the science they declared a fake consensus demanding public acceptance that the science is settled not open to debate."Strong’s dream is more than ever falling apart"But the wonderful irony is that the reason why Paris will fail, like Copenhagen before it, is that those “developing countries”, led by China and India – now the world’s first and third largest “CO2 emitters” – have not the slightest intention of curbing their emissions. It is for the West to do that, for creating “the problem”. Thus, just as he died, Strong’s dream is more than ever falling apart – thanks to those very countries his socialist vision was intended to help.Farewell to the man who invented 'climate change'ChinaThe President of China, Hu Jin Tao, greets Maurice StrongStrong, from his earliest days, had a deep interest in and fascination for China and has been going to China for more than 40 years in various capacities, personal, United Nations, World Bank and business.He now spends most of his time there and is active as an advisor and business relationships in the environment, energy, and technology sectors. His principal activities are centered at Peking University, where he is an active Honorary Professor, as well as Honorary Chairman of its Environmental Foundation and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Research on Security and Sustainability for Northeast Asia, following up on his experience with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).Indeed, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, near the end of his term, paid the following tribute to Strong:“Looking back on our time together, we have shared many trials and tribulations and I am grateful that I had the benefit of your global vision and wise counsel on many critical issues, not least the delicate question of the Korean Peninsula and China’s changing role in the world. Your unwavering commitment to the environment, multilateralism and peaceful resolution of conflicts is especially appreciated.”Judith Curry Blog ‘POLITICIZING THE IPCC REPORT’In the global debate about climate change and energy policy, science is increasingly becoming a side show, and used when it is convenient to justify a politically desirable policy. Well, that is politics. I have two concerns:1. ‘Using’ climate science in this way has a very unfortunate impact on climate science itself: ‘inconvenient’ questions don’t get asked and inconvenient science doesn’t get funded.2. If people are concerned about the adverse impacts of extreme weather events, reducing CO2 emissions are not going to have any impact on policy relevant time scales, even if you accept the IPCC analyses. Resources expended on energy policy are in direct conflict with reducing vulnerability to extreme events.242 RESPONSES TO “POLITICIZING THE IPCC REPORT”Paul Matthews | July 29, 2014 at 1:15 pm |One point that is important to make for the US audience is that here in the UK, although it is politicised, the climate debate does not divide sharply along party lines in the way it does in the US. Of the two dissidents, one is Conservative (Lilley) but the other is Labour (Stringer). One thing these two have in common is a degree in a science subject, unlike the other committee members. Thanks for the link!Jeffn | July 29, 2014 at 4:04 pm |That is an interesting point that is raised often. I wonder, however, how much of that fact is simple political survival. Both parties in the UK endorsed policy that has proven to be simultaneously extraordinarily expensive and useless. To have to admit that and acknowledge that the scare story used to sell the bad policy is overblown would be political suicide. The short version of this “report” is MPs Claim: We Aren’t Totally Incompetent, We Really Did Have a Reason to Wreck The Nation’s Energy Policy!The Toles cartoon is a classic of warmist hypocrisy. The warm constantly parley every hot day or storm into “proof” or “evidence” of AGW, yet when their own meme is thrown in their faces in a cold snap, they pat each other on the back over how clever they are to point out the dupes who can’t tell the difference between weather and climate. No doubt it raises a weak cheer from the faithful, but nobody else is buying it.rls | July 29, 2014 at 5:14 pm |I think it is the opposite in the US. The plurality is against big spending to reign in CO2 emissions. When Obama’s party had control of both chambers of congress he could not get Cap and Trade passed.Hugh Whalen | July 29, 2014 at 1:42 pm |The whole IPCC/AGW seems to me to correspond to this:Question: Do you agree that crime is a problem?Answer: 97% of the populations says: YES!Conclusion: 97% of the population supports the death penalty. It must be instituted immediately. Sigh.David Wojick | July 29, 2014 at 1:56 pm |An excellent analogy, Hugh. 97% think humans have made some contribution to the past warming (if only UHI). Then it is claimed that they therefore support drastic decarbonization efforts. This is the way political arguments often work, or try to.Turnedoutnice | July 29, 2014 at 1:53 pm |it looks very much as if the final obstacle to progression along the path of sanity has been overcome. It is the acceptance that the explanation of the ‘hiatus’ aka ‘pause’ by natural cooling processes, countering the GHE, implies that natural heating processes contributed to the previous http://warming.So far so good; Latif argues that the IPCC’s CO2 ‘Climate Sensitivity’ has been far too high: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/...However, there is much further to go; the reality is that solar processes account for most if not all of the post 1710 warming: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co...CO2 Climate Sensitivity may be very low indeed and it is easy to show how……..UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warmingMICHAEL BASTASCH12:08 PM 01/15/2014Play VideoUnited Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”>Al Gore, former US presidential candidate and now the apopalytic, big Democrat climate huckster is most responsible for the politicalization of climate science. Sadly, Gore used poor judgment in choosing his science colleagues. Gore relied mostly on the ravings of former NASA scientist and “loose cannon” Dr. James Hansen. He is an astronomer, the great apoloptic exaggerator. He is under ethics cloud for million dollar personal awards. Also Gore embraced the disreputable Michael Mann, junior scientist and author of the fake hockey stick graph that erased accepted climate history. Barack Obama became Gore’s political supporter and crusader willing to mislabel life giving, non toxic Co2 as pollution for the cause.Al Gore’s dirty tricks (phony science is ok with him.)National Post (Latest Edition)1 Aug 2017 Alex EpsteinAlex Epstein is author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.Al Gore with former mayor of Tacloban City Alfred Romualdez and Typhoon Haiyan survivor Demi Raya.The more than seven billion people living in the world today need affordable, abundant energy — and a livable climate — to flourish. But the world’s leading source of energy is also the leading source of increasing greenhouse gases.What to do? This is the vital question Al Gore took on in his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth, and takes on again in his newly released follow- up An Inconvenient Sequel.As the most influential figure in the international climate conversation, Gore has a responsibility to give us the whole picture of fossil fuels’ impacts — both their benefits and the risks they pose to humans flourishing. Unfortunately, Gore has given us a deeply biased picture that completely ignores fossil fuels’ indispensable benefits and wildly exaggerates their impact on climate.The running theme throughout An Inconvenient Sequel is that Gore’s first film was even more right than he expected. The movie begins with defenders of fossil fuels mocking or ignoring the dramatic predictions of An Inconvenient Truth. Leaving aside a heroic (and highly disputed) portrayal of Gore rescuing the Paris climate accord, the rest of the movie focuses on vindicating Gore’s two chief predictions: 1) That we could replace fossil fuels with cheap solar- and windpowered “renewables”; and 2) that continued use of fossil fuels would lead to catastrophic temperature rises, catastrophic sea- level rises, catastrophic flooding, catastrophic drought, catastrophic storms, and catastrophic disease proliferation.To justify these claims, Gore makes extensive uses of anecdotes: he shows us the town of Georgetown, Texas, and its use of 100-percent renewable energy, a deadly heat wave in India, a deadly flood in Miami, a deadly drought in Syria, a deadly storm in the Philippines, and the Zika virus penetrating t he United States.Some of his anecdotes are meant to prove that cheap solar and wind are, as 2006 Gore prophesied, quickly dominating t he world’s energy supply and, as 2006 Gore also warned us, that our rapidly warming climate is killing more and more people each year. But he has not given us the whole picture.Take the rising dominance of solar and wind, which is used to paint supporters of fossil fuels as troglodytes, fools, and shills for Big Oil. The combined share of world energy consumption from renewables is all of two per cent. And it’s an expensive, unreliable, and therefore difficult-to-scale two per cent.Because solar and wind are “unreliables,” they need to be backed up by reliable sources of power, usually fossil fuels, or sometimes non-carbon sources including nuclear and large- scale hydro power (all of which Gore and other environmentalists refuse to support). This is why every grid that incorporates significant solar and wind has more expensive electricity. Germans, on the hook for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s self- righteous anticarbon commitments, are already paying three times the rates for electricity that Americans do.Stories about “100- percent renewable” locations like Georgetown, Texas, are not just anecdotal evidence, they are lies. The Texas grid f rom which Georgetown draws its electricity is comprised of 43.7 per cent natural gas, 28.8 per cent coal, 12 per cent nuclear, and only 15.6 per cent renewable. Using a virtue- signall i ng gimmick pioneered by Apple, Facebook, and Google, Georgetown pays its state utility to label its grid electricity “renewable” — even though it draws its power from that fossil- fuel heavy Texas grid — while tarring others on the grid as “non-renewable.”If we look at the overall trends instead of engaging in anecdotal manipulation we see that fossil fuel energy is the fastest-growing energy source in the world — still. Fossil fuels have never been more vital to human flour ishing. There are 1,600 coal Advances in technology are making fossil fuels cleaner, safer, and more efficient than ever. To reduce their growth let alone to radically restrict their use — which is what Gore advocates — means forcing energy poverty on billions of people.Gore and others should be free to make the case that the danger of greenhouse gases is so serious as to warrant that scale of human misery. But they should have to quantify and justify the magnitude of climate danger. And that brings us to the truth about climate.The overall trend in climate danger is that it is at an all-time low. The Emergency Events Database ( EM- DAT) shows 6,114 climate- related deaths in 2016. In other recent years the numbers have maxed out in the tens of thousands. Compare this to the 1930s when, adjusted for population, climate- related deaths hit the 10- million mark several times.The most s i gnificant cause of our radically reduced climate danger is industrial development, which takes a naturally dangerous climate and makes it unnaturally safe. And industrial development is driven by cheap, plentiful, reliable energy — which, today, overwhelmingly means fossil fuels. Climate will always be dangerous so priority number one is to have the energy and development to tame it. Modern irrigation, residential heating and air conditioning have made once uninhabitable places perfectly comfortable.Gore’s Inconvenient Sequel gives a biased, selfserving, and convenient picture of fossil fuels and climate — convenient for Gore’s legacy, that is, but inconvenient for the billions his energy poverty policies will harm. As citizens, we must start demanding responsible thought leaders who will give us the whole picture that life- and- death energy and climate decisions require.When the UNIPCC first published their radical unproven theory about fossil fuel emissions of Co2 they demanded “the science is settled.” Their supporters refused to debate and attacked skeptics personally. The UN head said this issue was his ‘religion’ so it has become a matter of politics and belief not science.2. Dr. James Hansen is a lead IPCC scientist who conspired to fudge climate data to make the past look colder and present look warmer.“But in the year 2000, NASA and NOAA altered the historical US temperature record, which now shows that there was about one degree centigrade US warming during the century before 1989.The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.Hansen’s recent temperature data tampering is not limited to the US. He has done the same thing all over the planet. Below is one recent example in Iceland, where he dramatically cooled the first half of the century, and warmed the present. He appears to be trying to erase evidence that there was a very warm period in much of the Arctic around 1940.Hansen has never provided any evidence to support the idea that skeptics are either well funded or intentionally misleading the public, yet he frequently repeats this claim.Dr. Hansen has suggested that fossil fuel corporation CEOs are intentionally committing high crimes against the planet – because they don’t believe his spectacularly failed mispredictions.”Hansen went on to say: “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”James Hansen: Try Fossil Fuel CEOs For ‘High Crimes Against HumanityAdditionally Dr. Hansen has been arrested several times for committing crimes in “defense of the planet”.‘Without Hansen’s bold move into massive data tampering, the global warming scam would have been dead decades ago. Hansen quickly learned that he could use the trust NASA had built up during the Apollo program as cover to turn cooling into warming. All things become possible once a scientist makes the move into data tampering and fraud.’Make no mistake about it, the people behind this scam are criminals – not scientists. They have nothing but failed predictions and fraud in their past and present.http://climatechangedispatch.com...NASA. JAMES HANSEN, AND THE POLITICALIZATION OF SCIENCENew issues swirl around controversial NASA branchNASA's primary climate monitoring agency is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Operating out of a small office at Columbia University, GISS is run by Dr. James Hansen. Official NASA climate statements come through GISS ... which means they must get by Hansen. Many other scientists and agencies make climate predictions, but Hansen's top the list for scare factor, predicting consequences considerably more dire than his colleagues.Hansen specializes in climate "modeling" -- attempting to predict future events based on computer simulations. In 1971, Hansen wrote his first climate model, which showed the world was about to experience severe global cooling. NASA colleagues used it to warn the world that immediate action was needed to prevent catastrophe.Most research papers are rather dry reading, written to be as unemotional as possible. Not so with Hansen's reports, whose works scream alarmism even in their titles: "Climate Catastrophe," "Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb," and "The Threat to the Planet." Hansen was most recently in the news when an amateur blogger discovered an error in his climate data, a mistake Hansen later discounted as unimportant to the "big picture" of compelling public action on climate change.But who is James Hansen? Is he an impartial researcher seeking scientific truth? Or a political activist with an axe to grind?In 2006, Hansen accused the Bush Administration of attempting to censor him. The issue stemmed from an email sent by a 23-year old NASA public affairs intern. It warned Hansen over repeated violations of NASA's official press policy, which requires the agency be notified prior to interviews. Hansen claimed he was being "silenced," despite delivering over 1,400 interviews in recent years, including 15 the very month he made the claim. While he admits to violating the NASA press policy, Hansen states he had a "constitutional right" to grant interviews. Hansen then began a barrage of public appearances on TV, radio and in lecture halls decrying the politicization of climate science.Turns out he was right. Science was being politicized. By him.A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. OSI, a political group which spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape public policy," is funded by billionaire George Soros, the largest backer of Kerry's 2004 Presidential Campaign. Soros, who once declared that "removing Bush from office was the "central focus" of his life, has also given tens of millions of dollars to MoveOn.Org | Democracy In Action and other political action groups.Certainly Soros has a right to spend his own money. But NASA officials have a responsibility to accurate, unbiased, nonpartisan science. For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.But the issues don't stop here. Hansen received an earlier $250,000 grant from the Heinz Foundation, an organization run by Kerry's wife, which he followed by publicly endorsing Kerry. Hansen also acted as a paid consultant to Gore during the making of his global-warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and even personally promoted the film during an NYC event.After the the GISS data error was revealed, Hansen finally agreed to make public the method he uses to generate "official" temperature records from the actual readings. That process has been revealed to be thousands of lines of source code, containing hundreds of arbitrary "bias" adjustments to individual sites, tossing out many readings entirely, and raising (or lowering) the actual values for others, sometimes by several degrees. Many areas with weak or no rising temperature trends are therefore given, after adjustment, a much sharper trend. A full audit of the Hansen code is currently underway, but it seems clear that Hansen has more explaining to do.George Deutsch, the NASA intern who resigned over the censorship fallout, said he was initially warned about Hansen when starting the job, "People said ... you gotta watch that guy. He is a loose cannon; he is kind of crazy. He is difficult to work with; he is an alarmist; he exaggerates.'"Hansen's office did not return a request from DailyTech for an interview for this article.Update: Hansen has denied receiving direct funding from OSI. Investors Business Daily is standing behind the story, claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media.Update: NASA, James Hansen, and the Politicization of Science3. Disreputable Micael Mann - “inconvenient truth” truth video is based on a fudged hockey stick chart drawn by disreputable Michael Mann who refuses to disclose his data sources. Mann’s work is wrong and broadly impugned by scores of climate scientists documented in this book.4. COMMENTSJames Matkin27 Sep 2017 9:03 AMAl Gore is no more than a huckster misleading the public about climate science for political gain. The weak AGW theory demonizing trace amounts of Co2 from fossil fuels is demolished with recent research based on actual results not flawed computer models. Gore's scaremongering hypothesis is no more than "meritless conjectures."Atmospheric scientists Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. Ralph Dlugi, and Dr. Nicole Mölders have just published a paper in the journal Natural Science that exposes the physical and observational shortcomings of the widely-accepted 288 K – 255 K = 33 K greenhouse effect equation. They conclude that this “thought experiment” is “based on physically irrelevant assumptions and its results considerably disagree with observations“.5. Barack Obama mistruths about Co2 - former US President and leader of Democrats"Of all the many disastrous decisions made by the Obama administration, probably the most dishonest and damaging was the one whereby it branded the harmless trace gas which helps plants to grow as public enemy number one"ABSTRACTBased on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W?MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy-flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist. Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impactIt is the sun not green house gases that is the driving force of our climate.THE LAST WORD BY BRITISH HISTORIAN PAUL JOHNSONThe idea that human beings have changed and are changingthe basic climate system of the Earth through their industrialactivities and buming of fossil fuels - the essence of the Greens'theory of global warming - has about as much basis in scienceas Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, isa political theory of actions, demanding compliance withits rulcs"Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof -which history offers so many examples - that people canbe suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they area substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is acreed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science.If people are in need of religion, why don't they just turn to thegenuine article?Paul Johnson, journalist and historian, achieved international bestsellerdom in the 1980s with "Modern Times: The World From the Twenties to the Eighties," one of the most readable works of history ever published . Opening page of Bob Carter’s book, CLIMATE: THE COUNTER CONSENSUS.