Climate Cabal Purges ‘Deniers’

The climate cabal is in a panic. The Trump Administration is systematically dismantling President Obama’s climate change legacy: Federal agencies are scrubbing references to climate change, President Trump announced the United States. would exit the Paris Climate Accord, and his cabinet is peddling American-made fossil fuels around the world.

Climate change barely registered a blip in the 2016 presidential election, and even members of the alleged Party of Science are increasingly uninterested in global warming. Only 19 percent of Democrats say climate change is the most important issue in the mid-term elections, and that support drops to 11 percent for independent voters. On the heels of an El Nino season where temperatures were customarily warm, most of the country is now enduring a frigid, blizzard-like winter, which the climate propagandists counterintuitively also blame on global warming.

So, as the climate cabal feels their grip on federal policy and public opinion weaken, its zealots are becoming more desperate. Michael Mann, a Penn State University climatologist and the media’s go-to-guy for any apocalyptic quote about how anthropogenic global warming will kill us all, seems more unbalanced than usual. As the “Citizen Secretary of Science and Environment” in Donald Trump’s so-called “Shadow Cabinet”—which also includes Laurence Tribe and Robert Reich—Mann appears to be taking his pretend post a bit too seriously. Mann recently called White House advisor Kellyanne Conway “evil incarnate,” said Trump is a “moron” and a “threat to the planet,” and denounced Devin Nunes as “a traitor to this country” and demanded he “be subject to appropriate sanctions.” He’s mocked the president’s son and tweeted at the First Lady. (Pretty ironic coming from a guy who filed a lawsuit because someone called him a mean name.)

Last April, he started the #ShowYourCancellation hashtag to urge others to join him in cancelling their New York Times subscriptions after the paper hired anti-Trump “conservative” and former climate change skeptic Bret Stephens. (As a Wall Street Journal columnist, Stephens mocked climate change as a “religion” and vilified “climate prophets and profiteers” for years. He quickly reversed his view once he joined the Times.) Channeling his inner child—apparently, an easy task for him—Mann just published a children’s book to help indoctrinate the nation’s youth in the ways we human beings are causing global warming. He smears other scientists who don’t adhere to strict climate dogma, but still portrays himself as the victim. In testimony last year on Capitol Hill, Mann compared himself to scientists purged under Stalin’s reign of terror. But despite his inane bleating about his supposed oppression, Mann still manages to earn awards and accolades from climate acolytes around the world, and is the most quoted climate scientist in the American press.

Now, the notorious “Hockey Stick” creator is going after the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Mann is demanding that museum officials remove Rebekah Mercer from its board of trustees: Mercer is an heiress, philanthropist and major Republican Party benefactor who supports Donald Trump. She runs the Mercer Family Foundation, which has donated $4 million to the museum since 2008—and probably helped raise much more than that—and has been a museum board member since 2013. Her father was a scientist, and Mercer has a master’s degree from Stanford in management science and engineering.

Despite her scientific credentials and largess, Mann wants her kicked off the board because she doesn’t agree with the mythical consensus on man-made global warming, and because her foundation donates money to nonprofits that challenge climate science. A letter signed by Mann and more than 400 activist-scientists gives a scary glimpse into the next stage of attack by the climate cabal: “We ask the American Museum of Natural History, and all public science museums, to end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation, and to have Rebekah Mercer leave the American Museum of Natural History Board of Trustees.”

In a New York Times op-ed on February 5, Mann accuses Mercer of spending millions to “discredit science.” While he rants about President Trump, the Koch brothers, and conservative climate deniers, Mann laughably argues his stunt isn’t rooted in politics: “Let’s be clear: This is not about partisan politics; it’s about mission alignment and truth. A financier of climate denialism does not belong in a leadership position at a science museum.” He arrogantly suggests that Mercer’s donations should be spent “to develop exhibitions and programs that educate the public about the climate-denial machine, that illuminate its history of using propaganda to obstruct pro-climate action and that document how we’ve arrived at this current crisis point for the planet.”

Here, I have a suggestion for Dr. Mann: After you raise the $650,000 the Mercers donate to the museum every year, then the board can ask her to step down. It’s easy to rage about “climate deniers” and make demands for a litmus test that museum board members must pass. The hard part is putting your money where your big mouth is.

He’d better start selling a lot of those kids’ books.

But this is not about science. Silencing anyone who dares even to question climate change orthodoxy is yet another oppressive tactic in the Left’s anti-speech crusade. They simply cannot abide any opinion that does not align with their progressive worldview. It’s an extension of what’s happening in academia, in Hollywood, in the media, and in the private sector. “Mission alignment” is the creepy term they will use to impose their speech and conduct codes.

They are even starting to turn on their own. Scientists recently blasted Mann’s pal, Bill Nye the Science Guy, for attending the State of the Union address with Jim Bridenstine, Trump’s pick for NASA administrator. More than 500 women scientists accused Nye of placing his “personal brand over the interests of the scientific community at large” and blamed him for using his “public persona as a science entertainer to support an administration that is expressly xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.” They claimed, “it is impossible to separate science at major agencies like NASA from other pressing issues like racism, bigotry, and misogyny.”

So Bill Nye—a man on record saying he wants “climate deniers” to die off and who is a shameless promoter of identity politics—is now some kind of Trump stooge because he dared to sit with someone who holds a different opinion from his friends. Not only is he banished from the scientific establishment for his dirty deed, he is now branded racist, homophobic, and misogynistic.

This is a scary trajectory for science, and it’s being led by pernicious bullies like Michael Mann. The good people in the field need to speak out or it’s only a matter of time before they, too, are targeted just like Mercer and Nye.

About Julie Kelly

Julie Kelly is a political commentator and senior contributor to American Greatness. She is the author of Disloyal Opposition: How the NeverTrump Right Tried―And Failed―To Take Down the President Her past work can be found at The Federalist and National Review. She also has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, The Hill, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and Genetic Literacy Project. After college graduation, she served as a policy and communications consultant for several Republican candidates and elected officials in suburban Chicago. She also volunteered for her local GOP organization. After staying home for more than 10 years to raise her two daughters, Julie began teaching cooking classes out of her home. She then started writing about food policy, agriculture, and biotechnology, as well as climate change and other scientific issues. She graduated from Eastern Illinois University in 1990 with a degree in communications and minor degrees in political science and journalism. Julie lives in suburban Chicago with her husband, two daughters, and (unfortunately) three dogs.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

130 responses to “Climate Cabal Purges ‘Deniers’

  • Bill Nye isn’t a scientist. He can’t be banned from a community that he was never a part of. He is an mechanical engineer. He doesn’t anything about Climate change except what he reads in the newspaper and that is all propaganda.

    • Those cognitive dissonance blinders of yours are getting in the way of finding the truth, I see.

      • Democrats are only capable of gratuitous slurs. Critically reasoned conclusions are not necessary.

    • If you mean it is an article about sad, stupid people, exactly.

    • The spell checker caught it when you spelled it, “Toopid”, didn’t it?

  • The IPCC model run very hot
    The warming experienced is very mild (1 degree per 100 years, currently leveled off to near zero .26C)
    Ice pack in Antarctic are at record high
    Arctic Sea Ice is rebounding, and very thick
    Sea level rise is very minimal, and not accelerating
    Temp increases usually precede CO2 increases historically
    CO2 increases to 400 ppm has caused 11% global greening and record crop harvests
    Natural cycles explain present climate patterns
    None of the predictions of the IPCC have come to pass

    • Do gases expand when their temperature is increased? Does water expand when heated? Will your grandchildren breath Air?

      • ‘ Does water expand when heated?”

        That depends.

        Water contracts when it is heated from freezing point to 7 degrees above and begins to expand as it heats up further. Water expands when it freezes, as well as when it heats up, except for the 7 degrees above freezing where it contracts.

      • I doubt if water freezing or water near freezing is issue? Mr. Smarty Pants, I’ve heat traced my lines.

      • It’s interesting…. Water is one of the few common substances for which we have developed distinctively different names to be used depending on its state. We call frozen water ice, and water sufficiently heated either vapor or steam.

      • This phenomenon is important in playing a part in the annual ocean upwelling activity which mixes deep layers of water, turns them over, and brings nutrient rich water to the surface.

      • The fact that water expands when it freezes is also why fish can live in frozen lakes. The water freezes and floats to the top. It then insulates the lake to prevent further heat loss, preventing the entire lake from freezing, thus providing the fish with water in the very cold.

      • I’m 66 years old and no one has ever explained that very well to me. Thank you.

      • ??

        But plants like CO2 levels at 400 ppm vrs lower:
        FAO’s forecast for global cereal production in 2017 now stands at 2 627 million tonnes, 16.8 million tonnes (0.6 percent) higher than last year’s level, following a sharp month-on-month upward revision of 13.4 million tonnes. The bulk of the latest monthly revision concerns coarse grains, the production of which in 2017 is forecast at 1 371 million tonnes, up nearly 24 million tonnes (1.8 percent) from 2016 and some 11 million tonnes higher than it was anticipated in November.
        http://www.fao.org/3/a-i8278e.pdf

      • “But plants like CO2 levels at 400 ppm vrs lower” Horsefeathers! The plant laboratory at a company I worked witih grew plants at 20% CO2 to accelerate growth so that they could accelerate the time frame of their studies. Plants emerged under atmospheric conditions that had 100 times the amount of carbon dioxide in them than we have now.

        Nature volume 378, pages 603–605 (07 December 1995)

      • I suspect there is a reason he is no longer at that plant laboratory.

      • “Will your grandchildren breath Air?” What a stupid question.
        By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. If CO2 doubled it still wouldn’t represent 0.1% of what we breathe. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is necessary for life and a rise would greatly benefit crop yields.

      • There’s the kind of simple-minded thinking that warmists exhibit.

    • 1C per 100 years is not mild. It is faster than anything discernible in the geological record.

      Whether it has “levelled off” depends on how far you go back. For many reasons it is erratic over twenty, even thirty years. In the 1940s it appeared to be going down, levelled off in the 50s and 60s, then shot up again for the next 30 years. To get a consistent trend you have to look at 30 or 40 year averages.
      The situation is somewhat clearer if you separate out El Nino, La Nina and neutral years, and subtract out variations with known causes, such as volcanic activity, solar intensity, etc.

      Re Antarctic ice, the winter sea ice reached a record low in 2016. What the ice sheets (i.e. land based) are doing is hotly debated. Recent satellite measurements suggest a height increase, while gravitational measurements show a mass decrease. The state of ice sheets has not been knowable at all until recently anyway, so “record high” does not mean much.
      What is understood is that the pack can grow through extra precipitation even while increasing in average temperature, and we know that GW puts more water into the atmosphere to precipitate.

      Re the Arctic, “January of 2018 began and ended with satellite-era record lows in Arctic sea ice extent, ” – NSIDC.

      From 1880 to 1940, sea level rose at average 1mm/y. From then till now, the average is 1.5mm/y. As you narrow that to 1960-now or 1970-now the slope gets steeper. Source NOAA.

      Yes, increased temperature causes extra CO2, and it is understood why. The geological record shows this in several places, and in most or all it is known what caused the initial temperature rise. It is also understood that the CO2 release was a feedback which made the temperatures rise quite a bit more than they would otherwise have done.
      The situation today is different. The extra CO2 we humans have put into the atmosphere is the only credible explanation for the temperature rise we are seeing. Nothing else cuts it.

      CO2 increase has caused extra plant growth in some areas, devastating droughts and floods in others. The effect does not apply to crops using the C4 photosynthetic cycle, and in warmer climes the increased temperature slows growth more than the extra CO2 boosts it. There is also evidence the crops are less nutritious.

      But this is your worst error: “None of the predictions of the IPCC have come to pass”.
      Go and read them. They have persistently underestimated changes, largely because they underestimated the increase in emissions.
      Until 2012, the IPCC thought that the Arctic ice sheet was safe at least until 2050. Hardly any climate scientists think that now.
      I think I know why people fall for this lie. When a climate scientist predicts dire consequences in 50 years, people remember the prediction but not the time period. When it doesn’t happen in 5 years they claim the scientist got it wrong. I have observed this on many occasions.

    • Climate will do what climate will do as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, it is wise to base decisions and policy on hard fact.

      Here are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know and understand. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational. And please feel free to copy/paste this comment wherever you think it will do the most good.

      The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:

      Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Centigrade.

      But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

      Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

      The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

      The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that

      Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

      [1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

      by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK “http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

      [2] ibid.

      [3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK “http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf” http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf. See p. 4.The 0 – 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

      [4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. HYPERLINK “http://webbook.nist.gov/” http://webbook.nist.gov/

      [5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.

      [6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK “http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html. The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.

      [7] History of Earth’s Climate. http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm This account was written by someone for whom English was a second language and focuses on Scandinavia, but it draws together evidence from around the world, and provides insight into the challenges of judging temperatures in earlier geological times.[8] New York Nature – The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.net/IceAge.html

      [9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK “https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/NL99W/PDF/globlwrmw99.pdf” http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/archived_issues/Winter_1999.pdf This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

      [10] Ibid.

      [11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009” http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009.

      See also HYPERLINK “http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html and

      HYPERLINK “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK “http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Et al.

      ADDENDUM

      What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.

      Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.

      In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

      I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

      • Well written and argued. I have an open mind on this issue, and your post helped direct me to more research.

      • See also the Manhattan Contrarian and his multiple posts on “The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time”. And even if a believer in all this, check out Bjorn Lomborg’s book the “Skeptical Environmentalist” for alternative uses for the money that would be spent combating global warming, and the effects of the globalists plans (almost zero) at enormous cost.

    • And we may be facing a solar minimum in which less energy from the sun results in a significant cooling pattern that could last decades.

      • The AGW crowd will use this phenomenon to explain why their models did not predict the future correctly (because the sun’s fluctuations were not internalized into their models). Hence they will argue that any data not conforming to their predicted global warming trend-line is just a temporary “stay of execution”.

        And of course they will demand more research dollars to add the effect of solar minimums and maximums to their otherwise accurate models.

        There will be no end to this argument until either the common man loses interest in anything important that evolves slower than the human lifespan, or the rate of climate change becomes so rapid that it will be too late to avert climate dooms-day (thus spoke the perfect climate models, of course). Either way, AGW scientists become irrelevant. Either they die off, or we die off.

    • Your post is very rational, but unnecessary. All that is needed to be said is the issue was divided along party lines. That would be enough said. Most who realize that realize that it’s been a scam from the get-go.

  • Nature Geoscience published two peer reviewed papers, in 2017, that AGCC adherents never got around to mentioning. The first was: “Causes of Differences in Model and Satellite Tropospheric Warming Rates.” The second article is titled: “Emission Budgets and Pathways Consistent with Limiting Warming to 1.5ºC.” The first paper stated that Tropospheric warming trends in the 21st century have been less than predicted by the models because of modeling errors. The thrust of the second paper is that the Paris Accord objective of a 1.5ºC rise is sufficient, and should be accepted by all countries, because the projected warming has been overstated by the modeling.

    Now, Nature has started off 2018 with another paper that will probably be “overlooked.” It is entitled: “Emergent Constraint on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity from Global Temperature Variability.” It tackles the IPCC “likely” warming increase of 1.5ºC to 4.5ºC. This paper presents data that shows with 66% confidence level (the IPCC “Likely” metric) that the warming range is 2.2ºC to 3.4ºC. The probability of reaching or exceeding 4.5ºC is less than 1 percent.

    So there you have it. The “settled science” knows that the computer modeling is accurately predicting virtual runaway global warming. That heretical publication, Nature, says there are problems with the modeling and the likely temperature rise has been over stated.

    BTW: Before you scream “Deniers” check the authors. They are all recognized AGCC adherents. In fact, one of the first article authors is Dr. Michael E. “Hockey Stick” Mann.

    Emergent Constraint on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity from Global Temperature Variability
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fb73df4f84-

    Causes of Differences In Model and Satellite Tropospheric Warming Rates
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2973

    Emission Budgets and Pathways Consistent with Limiting Warming to 1.5ºC
    http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031?foxtrotcallback=true#access

    • These are early examples of a trend that will no doubt increase as time passes, and as the climate models, all of which have been wrong from Day One, continue to crumble to bits. They’re “CYA” articles, written with a tone of “Well, I know what we said for all those years, but this is what we really meant.”

  • I realize the Book says we must turn the cheek seven times seven, but I think 49 times is enough.
    Time to fight back.

  • What a ridiculous article. Just farcical nonsense. No wonder no-one takes the last of the deniers seriously anywhere in the world outside Hicksville USA.

    • ‘Last of the deniers’? You speaking of those wedded to the CAGW myth? For more and more we are seeing a big back-off of the claims of the IPCC and their ilk.

    • Your ignorance is dangerous as it demonstrates the Left’s ability to brain wash you and others like you. Believe it or not, there really is not even a single piece of evidence supporting the entire climate change hoax. Come out of your bubble and check out all the scientists who have declared it a hoax. There is not the slightest bit of science involved with “climate change” which is why it really is a secular religion through which the Left seeks to gain even tighter control over the masses. Wake up.

    • Considering the lack of interest most of the public has for the warmer wet dream it looks like YOU are the one not taken seriously.

    • Judging from the quality of your rebuttal the article must be spot on.

  • The dismantling of everything that he did is the only shovel ready job hussein obama ever created.

    • Warmer temps are good. Only the insane want to return to the “pre-industrial climate” horrors of the Little Ice Age.

      The science does not support the conclusion that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming, and doesn’t come close to supporting alarmism.

      1. Neutral feedback CO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS — the amount of warming from doubling CO2) is a highly unalarming 1°C. Absent strong positive feedback, there is no crisis. — Rahmstorf, p 38, http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

      2. Feedback is very poorly understood, hence the lowered and widened ECS range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C from the UN’s 5th Assessment Report. — IPCC AR5, Summary for Policy Makers, p 14, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

      3. The models that assume strong positive feedback have failed miserably. — Santer et al, http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n7/full/ngeo2973.html

      4. We have had 3 statistically identical periods of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. The first 2 could not have been due to humans. — Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

      5. The null hypothesis — that late 20th century warming was the natural continuation of the trend that started in the 19th century with the end of the Little Ice Age — must be accepted unless someone can show otherwise. (There is no theory that attributes warming prior to about 1950 on human activity.)

    • Only a fool wouldn’t think so. In times of warmth, mankind has expanded and flourished. In times of cold, starvation, poverty set in.

      Mr. Pruitt only meant to state that ‘normal’ increases in temperature are better than decreases.

      If you look at the 1930s as a lead in to WWII you had three MAJOR famines in the world. The last time mankind was at almost total war was around 1800 (US and French revolutions, the dawn of the Napoleanic wars) all coincide with the ‘Little Ice Age’. The so-called Dark Ages didn’t result from the lack of a Roman Empire, but a downturn in world temperatures. The Rennasaince began almost exactly with Medieval warming.

  • When it’s too late to do anything about climate change, your name will be remembered Madame Kelly. You know nothing.

  • Climate Change is not science based because they will not accept any new evidence which makes it political and non-science based. Climate change is a faith based religion because you can never question it’s orthodoxy.

  • Climate Change is the only subject in the history of the world where 100% of the believers construct models that are 100% wrong 100% of the time and still believe that they are 100% correct.

    In truth, 100% of them are morons.

  • We still need to hear Mann’s explanation for why he was “having trouble hiding the decline [in temperatures].” Why was there a need to hide the data at all? Just curious.

    • As you know, the “data” range from unreliable to inconsistent to made-up – i.e., they’re garbage and lies.

  • Meanwhile,…
    * Heat received from Sun declining as Sun “cools” towards 2050
    * Computer future temperature models greatly exaggerate possible rate of increase of average temperatures
    * Sea ice is expanding not contracting
    * Winter storms in 2017-2018, once again demonstrating The End of Snow was a myth
    * Carbon dioxide contributes to global cooling
    * …and so much more

  • The increasing hysteria is proof positive that they sense their influence is waning – no doubt due to their prior hysteria.

  • Regardless of the rate of warming the greenhouse effect of CO2 is real and will inevitably warm the climate. The solution of eliminating CO2 in a world where the third world population doubles every 40 years is a fools errand. This is a problem that can only be solved by science. Recycling the carbon in CO2 is the only short term solution.

  • Having come up in the sixties, I am saddened and taken aback by the tactics now employed by those people who championed free speech and open debate. The global warming thing is particularly interesting in that it represents a religious demand to accept at face value that which cannot be proven but must be taken on faith. So what Warmism is or must be is a secular religion. Industrialism is what must be their original sin and Al Gore their High Priest.

    • Those people who you say “championed free speech and open debate” never meant it. They were marxists and useful idiots posturing to con fools like you.

  • No climate model predicting ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ of Mann or others can ‘predict the past’. In other words, if you run the model backward, it does not match the temperatures that have already been recorded.

    Mann, Gore and their useful idiots keep claiming ‘science, science, science’ but what they want is not how science is supposed to work.

    There is one observation made recently that DOES work when run backwards: the solar cycle. Ionizing radiation from the sun induces cloud formation. These observations by solar observatories, can be run backwards and match past temperatures to a high degree of precision.

    The sun is far, far more powerful an influence on world climate than anything man can possibly do at this point.

  • In particular, this specific demand, “to end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation,” has the potential to boomerang sharply, and right up Mr. Mann’s nose. As far as I am concerned, it describes him and those he relies upon for grants.

    In general, “They are even starting to turn on their own.” is not merely correct, it is inevitable. History has many lessons for us, but one is certainly that in a system where your ascent is fueled by your ability to denounce, denigrate, and demonize others, it is merely a matter of time before the next rising star puts you in his sights. As opposed to real science that rewards the search for truth and makes room for — even demands — apostasy, pseudo science becomes indistinguishable from religion, because it rewards not truth and proofs, but orthodoxy and ever more fervent professions of faith. Like Mr. Mann, Mr. Nye caught a ride on a tiger. Great fun while you’re in the saddle, a bitch when you fall off.

  • The cult of Global Warming, or Climate Change seem more and more desperate, and less and less interested in real science. Instead of presenting science, and updating or validating what they already have they seem to have left the realm of science completely and are relying on bare knuckle politics and intimidation. That won’t work anymore. Present real validated science, subject it to peer review and additional validation, and stop the intimidation. The cult doesn’t seem to want to do that, and if they don’t have real verifiable science they are willing to subject to scientific scrutiny they won’t another penny. The Green Corruption that flowed from the Obama regime by the tens of billions is over. The day of unverifiable, false science and intimidation are over. Reality and real science are the rule of the day

  • During the latest bitter cold snap I FINALLY understood.

    Too cold? Global warming.

    Too hot? Global warming.

    Didn’t like the movie? Global warming.

    Wife said no? Global warming.

    Hemorrhoids acting up? Global warming.

    Democrats lying? Natural.

    Food poisoned at the local McDonalds? Global warming.

    • Trump elected? Global warming. The increased temperatures must have fried peoples’ brains, else how could they have been SO wrong!

      • Except there AIN’T no increased temperatures.

        The honest New Year’s Day headline for the past 50 years would be – –

        Well, Last Year Was Pretty Much The Same Temperature As The Year Before.

  • none of the climate pretend scientist can explain away the fact that the temperature of the moon appears to follow a similar pattern as the earth. climate change is caused by things that occur outside of our atmosphere

    • As long as they chase the mythical evil trace element C02 as the cause they will be wasting everyone’s time

  • Weather isn’t the same as climate, unless the weather is bad. Idiotic Dr. Mann cannot predict with any accuracy what the weather conditions will be a month from now, so why would we believe he can predict what the global climate will do in 50-100 years. This is not that complex, Mann, et al don’t know and cannot know what the climate will do because it is complex beyond our understanding. Anyone who is changing his/her lifestyle in any inconvenient way under the delusion that he/she is affecting the climate is sadly, stupidly misinformed. Recycle, don’t litter, and protect our rivers, lakes and streams. Those are meaningful practices that are proven to improve the conditions of the planet.

    • “Anyone who is changing his/her lifestyle in any inconvenient way under the delusion that he/she is affecting the climate is sadly, stupidly misinformed.“

      Indeed if the apocalyptic pushers of climate change solutions would actually take such drastic measures to “combat” climate change I’d at least commend them on their commitment. But they aren’t even doing that.

  • Does climate change? yes
    Can we predict climate change? no
    Is it prudent not to pollute the earth? yes
    Should America send $3B to other countries? no
    Will global thermonuclear war affect the planet? yes–let’s all spend some time on this one

  • You can cherry pick high profile scientists to hate but the fact is tens of thousands of scientists who study our planet are passed the reality of climate warming and are trying desperately to come up with solutions for the unpleasant problems climate change will bring. All at the same time dealing with a scientifically illiterate Administration and vested fossil fuel interests.

      • So exaggerated as to be meaningless, it is as fake and manufactured as AGW itself.

    • You do realize that their money is based on their findings? If the government put you and only you in charge of selling cheddar cheese, would you promote cheddar cheeses as the best cheese for you and then hire everybody who agreed with you to help you sell cheddar cheese?

    • 100% of theology students believe in God. The same goes for climate scientists. They can’t get a degree without a belief in AGW. Nor would they even sign up for it unless they thought they were going to save the world by evangelizing their new religion.

      • What a foolish statement. Religion is a group of beliefs based on faith regardless of facts.
        To be a scientist requires one to accept the scientific hypothesis: propose a theory ; test that theory with experiments designed to provide data, adjust theory based on that new data, present a paper for PEER REVIEW. If the design of the experiment was deemed rigorous, the paper will usually be accepted for publication. Then other scientists will do experimentation that may support or refute the first scientist’s work….Over time decades] , as more and more experimentation is done in many fields related to our climate , a picture starts to form like filling in the pixels of a photograph .
        We have a clear picture now and the cause greenhouse gases and the direction [warming and degree of warming a range from 3.5 to 8 degrees F. by the end of the century. All result in damaging disruptive changes in farming, extreme weather, water shortages, rising ocean levels damaging coastal infrastructure, increasing problems with tropical diseases , and many more problems for humankind.
        Remember too, there are always sincere but wrong scientific outliers and like any profession scientists that will prostitute themselves to the highest bidder usually fossil fuel interest that want to continue to sell their products as long as possible no matter what the harm.
        Ask yourself, would there be controversy over the existence of climate change if we already had 100% clean energy?

      • We have a clear picture now? Does that mean that we know precisely what the control knob is for the global climate is and, therefore, we can control the climate of the planet?

      • I would like to ask you why the commenters on this site are so opposed to switching to clean energy now that many energy forecasting organizations ex: Lazard, Bloomberg , say that clean energy in many places wind and solar are cheaper than coal and even natural gas gas? Some places as for example Colorado have had bids of wind and battery storage ; wind,solar and battery storage cheaper than any fossil fuel bids
        The trend is 7-15 % cheaper for clean energy each year. Given that pollution can be reduced and effects on climate mitigated I know you don’t believe in that why do you all object to this transition? Certainly China and India are making a U turn ti clean energy.

      • Given that the goal is to provide tax payer money to those who promise “clean energy” under the guise of the AGW religion, maybe not, but I believe they would never stop sucking up to the government tit.

      • “To be a scientist requires one to accept the scientific hypothesis: propose a theory ; test that theory with experiments designed to provide data, adjust theory based on that new data, present a paper for PEER REVIEW. If the design of the experiment was deemed rigorous, the paper will usually be accepted for publication. Then other scientists will dio (sic)experimentation that may support or refute the first scientist’s work”

        All of which has not happened!
        Theories advanced. Debate closed!
        No independently testable hypothesis.
        Subjectable popular Consensus over real science.
        PEER Review bought and traded.

        I stand by my statement.
        You have offered nothing that refutes it.

      • I think you have just proved my point about climate science be based on faith (and marketing)

  • Starting off with the usual stupidity of mistaking this month’s weather for climate, Kelly goes on to chide Michael Mann for calling Trump a “moron,” a sin Mann has in common with the current Secretary of State and, if they were honest, half the Republican members of Congress and 3/4 of White House staff. As for the unsourced and phony poll numbers, this hack might be interested that 63% of Americans say that “More needs to be done” by the US about climate change. (Quinnipiac University. Sept. 21-26, 2017), while 12% think we’re “doing too much.” I wonder who they are? As for the “climate change cabal” it’s the first time I’ve heard 95 percent of any group (like the world’s scientific community) referred to as a “cabal.” This whole article is simply a piece of right wing agitprop trying to convince the dwindling number of climate change deniers that they aren’t just dupes of fossil fuel fetishists.

    • Your knickers are in a bind. try using baby powder.
      It is a cabal that has been wrong for the past 17 years so far. It fits better into the totalitarian mindset of a typical leftist.

    • You are completely brainwashed. Remember the polls that predicted Hillary would be the next president? Polls are meaningless. You can stop with the “95% of the scientific community” meme. That has been debunked repeatedly as an outright, unsubstantiated lie. In a nutshell, you believe that the climate of the entire planet is controlled by CO2; that the sovereign nations of the planet are going to cooperate in one united circle jerk to control the climate of the planet; that water vapor, the sun, plate tectonics, the tilt of the earth, etc are insignificant contributors to the climate; and you in your Prius are saving the planet. Good luck with that.

  • Ice core samples from the north and south pole indicate that the earth’s temperature fluctuates every 25,000 years.
    It’s a cycle.
    AGW is a myth.

  • The alarmists can worship a pile-of-cow-shiit for all people care. Weird ‘apocalyptic’ weather cults have existed for thousands of years, and con men like Micheal Mann et. al. have taken full advantage. Basically, it’s a religion for people that are “too smart” for religion.

      • I am referring to people who make a name for themselves by being “edgy” by demeaning other peoples belief in a higher power beyond themselves.
        Versus, those who think that because they won all the participation rewards growing up and had a free ride through a liberal arts degree that they should be able to decree what everyone else should do, as if they were God!

    • Religion is ideology – ideology is based on emotions, ignorance, and politically-motivated lies and breeds dogmatism and zealotry. All religion is counterproductive.

      • That is an argument from ignorance. It is a ridiculously oversimplified and incorrect understanding of the origins and purpose of religions and the reasons they developed. It is a stance of fear and bigotry. For the record, I am not ‘religious’ in any traditional sense of the word.

      • It’s not an argument – it’s an accurate account.

        Read your own post above, dummy – you don’t seem to know what you yourself are saying.

      • “Argument from ignorance” is an informal fallacy. I’m not calling anyone ignorant; I’m just calling BS on your logic. I wrote that your “stance’ is derived of fear and anti-christian bigotry — a true statement of fact. That comment stands as written.
        For the record, your statement “all religion is counter-productive” is demonstrably false and needs no rebuttal. Now, explain to me again how “ideology” is based on emotions, ignorance, political lies and breeds dogmatism and zealotry? You are basically saying that religion equals ideology and all ideology is [bad].

        Ideology: (1) a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

        (2) the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

  • Glenn Reynolds had the best response to climate fanatics that I’ve seen. He said, “I’ll believe there’s a climate crisis when the alarmists start acting like they believe what they say, but not when Al Gore chooses to live in a 10,000 square foot mansion that uses twenty times the amount of electricity as the average American home. Nor when 23,000 activists fly to Bonn to cook up schemes to require the rest of us to fly less.”

  • The democrat left has devolved into an ideological cult immune to common sense or logic. Climate alarmism may have died down a bit, but it has been replaced with a conviction that our country is on the precipice of being overrun by Russians with the help of our chief executive.
    These folks just ain’t right in the head.

  • Mann, with his university credentials, has become a well known science fiction writer. His predictions have been less accurate than a bone throwing shaman. His tree ring work, despite his manipulations of the data, is an important catalogue of past climate along with sediment and ice cores. He prematurely guessed at future climate trends due to his lack of sufficient data.
    I understand he has a difficult time with competing theories on climate change and viciously attacks people who don’t religiously believe his theoretical work.

  • The GloBull Warming Cargo Cult trundles along. Scientology or AGW, what is the difference, not much.

  • “More than 500 women scientists… claim ‘it is impossible to separate science at major agencies like NASA from other pressing issues like racism, bigotry, and misogyny.’” What kind of gibberish is this? Is there racism, bigotry, and misogyny at NASA? Isn’t science by definition separate from social ills? These cultists are not helping their cause.

  • I am sorry for not reading all the previous comments, as this may have been brought up, BUT – Julie, really. “He’s mocked the president’s son”? Do you know what a “robber baron” is? Please, look it up. I like this column, and intend to dig into some of your previous work, but I hate it when someone with valid points comes off looking ignorant…

  • Global Warming, like the 1970’s era Global Cooling, is a Socialist project intended to effectively enslave Americans and Westerners.

    • THAT WAS JUST A COLD SPOT AND THIS IS INDEED PREDICTED!!!!!!!!!
      AND YES THAT ACID RAID DID ALSO COME BACK THEN!!!!!!!!!!
      YES GLOBAL WARMING IS A TRUE FACT AND NOT IN DISPUTE!!!!!!!!!

      • Thanks for commenting on my post. I am absolutely convinced by your arguments, especially by all of the exclamation points.

      • YOU ARE WELCOME!
        I DO NOT GET A LOT OF GOOD COMMENTS MOSTLY HATEFUL MOCKINGS FROM THE FAKE BIRDFISH
        WE ALL MUST FIGHT TOGETHER TO END THAT GLOBAL WARMINGS
        AND THAT RIGHT QUICK!!!!!!!!

        POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!

  • The global warming threat has been pure fraud since day one in 1990-91. The following are global warming references: (1)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL6ZCmmCU7c; (2) )
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sent/15e87b75ccbb818c?projector=1
    and (3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU. And also
    google:”Updated with Slides – Lord Christopher Monckton
    Speaking in St. Paul MN FMI” (that was in 2009) and then google: “Lord
    Monckton’s Presentation at the Heartland’s 12th International
    Conference on Climate Change.” (2016). The political left is pure evil.

  • Much of the comments here note that the belief in Global Warming, sans scientific proof, is a religion for people who reject religion.

    The Global Warming narrative is simply yet another fake assertion of what I think is best described as the “Leftist Cult Movement’, which has arisen over the past few decades.

    There are many reasons why the ‘Global Warming” narrative is a key building block of the Leftist Cult Movement narrative. But, mainly, by asserting Global Warming and it’s dire results in the future [which never comes], this gives the Left the cover story to take over the energy industry, or, rather, to transform the energy industry.

    The energy industry, how we fuel our society, is the engine of industry. If we had not discovered oil and invented the internal combustion engine, society would be very different. The modern world was built on fossil fuels.

    By getting control over the energy sector, such as in having government transform our energy sources through fiat, such as forcing our society to adopt wind turbines and solar panels, the Left essentially gains control over the key industry. It is a way to impose socialism, yet to do so under the cover of a benign cover story, such as “We are trying to save the planet from the disaster of global warming”.

    Leftists are Cult members. That is the most accurate way to think of them. They are ‘true believers’ in the Leftist Cult Movement’s Idiotology. And, their belief in man made global warming, which they assert will lead to catastrophe, is a key part of their Leftist Cult Movement narrative.
    ==============
    We are near the coldest temperatures that have existed since the end of the last Ice Age……

    One Picture Equals 1000 Words…..
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/141620822@N02/32530323176/in/dateposted-public/

    [the brief written essay below the picture provides a quick overview to the myth of man made global warming. We will be lucky if we don’t retreat into another Ice Age. Carbon Dioxide is a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and has no significant impact on the global temperature, and is at among the lowest levels it has ever reached in Earth’s history. Carbon Dioxide is critical to plant life, and crops, and the small increase in it since the industrial revolution over the past 100 years has increased plant life by about 20%]

    • The Left is a Cult. It’s ‘true believers’ are fools who have been indoctrinated thru the education system, which has been controlled by rabid leftists for decades.

      By labeling the Left properly as a Cult, we ridicule the Left and the foolish people who swallow their kool aide.

      The rabid Leftists you encounter are really just a more sophisticated version of the mind numbed robots of the Hare Krishna movement one would have encountered at an airport years ago. Look it up on google if you are too young…they were quite hilarious.

      Begin to call the Left the Cult which they are. Ridicule is one of our strongest weapons. ….Use it.

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

      The Insanity / Idiotology of the Leftist Cult Movement……

      How is the Leftist Cult Movement like Islamic Jihad…..

      One Picture Equals 1000 Words…….
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/141620822@N02/35477215040/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/

      [to open up the attached essay, click the double arrows >< in the lower right corner, and scroll down]

      [to send to a friend, click the curved arrow]

  • Liberals are always telling us how the seas are rising due to “Global warming” , so why almost all of them live on the coast? If they really believe it you imagine they would be trying to move as far away from the sea as they could

  • Can’t understand why people are still denying the terrible results of climate change several years after Florida slipped beneath the waves exactly as Al Gore predicted…. Oh, wait; never mind.

    • THOSE WAVES ARE COMING.
      AND THAT RIGHT QUICK!!!!!!!!!!

      AL GORE IS A HERO TO THE PEOPLE AND 1000% CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!

  • I gave up believing the climate change hysteria long before Trump came along. If Science is having a problem they should look in the mirror…who altered the data to make their dire predictions fit? Read “Environmental Overkill” from a past Governor from a liberal State!

    • NOT science – pseudoscience. People like you, who don’t know the difference, are a major part of the problem.

  • Ladies and gentlemen, it’s probably obvious to most all here, but it’s really all about the money, power, influence, and position.

    The AGW / Climate Change / Green / Environmental industry – and, yes, it is an industry – is competing against the oil / natural gas / nuclear industry to take over the energy world.

    What the AGW / Climate Change / Green / Environmental industry has done, moreover, is to infiltrate academia, the media, and government. Government, they have realized, is particularly lucrative because it has “endless” supplies of money. That money then goes to academia for “climate studies” and research grants for “climate”.

    The media, who are products of academia, are now acting for the AGW / Climate Change / Green / Environmental industry as a propaganda vehicle in the same way as Pravda acted as a propaganda vehicle for the Soviet Union.

    At the same time, academia are “re-educating” young people to accept the AGW / Climate Change / Green / Environmental industry as morally valid and the oil / natural gas / nuclear industry as morally wrong.

    Lenin and Mao would be proud.

  • Science is about how Nature works, not silencing opinions of those who differ from you.

  • YES WE THE PEOPLE DO KNOW THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A TRUE FACT
    YES GLOBAL WARMING DOES PREDICT COLD SPOTS AND WE HAVE A COLD SPOT NOW IN CHICAGO
    THIS FURTHER PROVES GLOBAL WARMING
    WE MUST
    BAN CARS AND USE PUBLIC TRANSPORT
    BAN UN NEEDED AIR TRAVEL
    BAN OIL AND COAL AND GAS AND NUCLEAR
    USE SAFE SOLAR AND SAFE WIND ONLY FOR POWER

    THIS IS A GLOBAL EMERGENCY AND RED ALERT
    YES TRUMP IS KILLING OUR PLANET!!!!!!!

    THESE ARE THE FACTS
    THEY ARE NOT IN DISPUTE:

    NOTE: I HAVE A HATEFUL CYBER STALKER. HE CAN EVEN POST WITH MY SAME NAME SOMEHOW. PLEASE IGNORE HIS HATEFUL MOCKINGS

  • ????CO2=LIFE????
    Mankind didn’t make a safe climate dangerous, but took a dangerous climate & inhospitable ???? & made it safe with fossil fuel technology!
    “Neither current events nor history show that the majority rule, or ever did rule.” – Jefferson Davis
    A consensus, especially a consensus about a theory without proven hypotheses, which is all that the ‘Greenhouse Gas Theory’ remains to date, is a notion which lies outside natural science, since it is completely irrelevant for objective truth or the establishment of a physical law. Scientific consens(us) is scientific nonsense. Science gets things wrong. It’s the only way they ever get things right – trial and error, and lots more research.
    Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on real world evidence not theoretical computer models. Among the great triumphs of scientific inquiry over the past 300 years is the ability of man to insulate himself against nature’s vicissitudes, and even to channel, to an astonishing degree, the forces of nature to his benefit.
    Perhaps our understanding of climate will rise to the same heights someday. But that day is not now, and those who believe that they can legislate solutions to problems they do not fully understand are certain to create more troubles than they will prevent.
    ????CO2=LIFE???? and is not a poisonous pollutant.
    Government funding for climate related science has, for too long, been concentrated on finding evidence of the hypothesis, derived from the theory of Greenhouse Gases controlling the baseline temperature of earth, that it is man causing the current warming by elevating CO2 levels. This despite ample proof of past much higher CO2 levels, optimum for the flourishing of plants and thus ALL life on earth dependant on them, not having resulted in any “tipping point” or runaway warming.
    The reason the climate change belief system has been so dramatically successful is because it fulfils needs of one sort or another for a very large number of people.
    1. Money – approx. $3 trillion has been spent on renewable energy, mainly wind and solar, since 2000, and considerably more than this is planned for the next two or three decades. None of this would have been spent if the terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ had never entered our minds. With all this money sloshing around, CAGW is probably the best funded belief system in the history of the world.
    2. Political power – one of the best ways to gain political power is to convince people of a threat, then claim to be the only party capable of shielding them from that threat. “Vote for us, otherwise your children will inherit a devastated wasteland!”
    3. Academia realized a long time ago that being the handmaiden of the politicians and the money-makers could be very lucrative. If you challenge academics on their CAGW beliefs, as I have done, you will receive a ferocious pushback because you are threatening the research funding on which their livelihood depends.
    4. We live in an intensely materialistic society (shop till you drop!), and many people have this unacknowledged spiritual void inside themselves (what’s it all about, then?). Belief in man’s wickedness and in the possibility of spiritual redemption by buying a Prius or protesting against pipelines helps to fill this void. (“Oh holy Al Gore and blessed Saint Suzuki, be with us now and in our hour of need”.)
    I have a nasty feeling that we are stuck with the CAGW belief system until someone comes up with an alternative and equally successful belief system.
    We live in a CO2-impoverished atmosphere, and unless we do something about it, the next ice age, which is going to come, may very possibly wipe out the human race. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c718084629d29af66763d43deb2be1fed7f779b3fd8adb01bb165fc9fe587213.jpg

  • Of course all Climate Change forecasts seem to envisage bad things 30 to 100 years from now…in other words when the alarmists won’t have to eat their words when proven wrong. The ONLY thing that will Save The Planet is limiting its explosive, out of control, population growth. If we can grow economies without growing populations everyone will eventually benefit.

  • Global warming is NOT science – it’s JUNK science. Junk science is ideological and politicized bullshiite packaged to look science-like. Too many people conflate junk science with rigorous science because they are completely ignorant of what science is.

  • Well, if a liberal says it it must be true Bill Nye is a Racist,Homophobic, and Misogynistic. Who knew?

  • If we’re really serious about global warming, and if we truly think CO2 emissions cause this phenomenon, then we should stop breathing, and we should kill off most animals, because animals generally contribute a lot of CO2 to the environment 24/7.

  • The word racist no longer has any meaning. The same with xenophobic, homophobia and misogynist. If someone called me any of those terms I would say ho hum and disregard it as meaningless. Climate change is real and has been for 4.5 billion years. Man-caused global warming is minuscule compared to the natural warming factors that make this planet habitable. But I am open to two sided discourse. I close my ears to zealots like Mann that cannot be seekers of truth.

Comments are closed.