Protesters, police, chaos! Reuters features Climate Hustle premiere! Protesters’ signs called skeptics ‘scum’ – ‘Police cordoned off the road leading to the venue as guests lined up’ – Exclusive Photos


By: - Climate DepotDecember 8, 2015 7:38 AM with 18 comments

Full Reuters article here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-skeptics-idUSKBN0TQ2F220151208

“They haven’t been too friendly to skeptics this year,” said Marc Morano, a former Republican party worker who runs the skeptical Climate Depot blog for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), based in Washington, D.C.

Morano said his group, which had the sole skeptic booth in the venue’s exhibit hall, had not done as much work inside the U.N. summit grounds as it normally does, in part because organizers had not issued enough passes.

A U.N. official did not respond to a request for comment, though organizers have said they had to ration passes because of demand.

On Monday night, Morano showed his new film, “Climate Hustle” in a Paris cinema, featuring climate-sceptic scientists. Police cordoned off the road leading to the venue as guests lined up and a demonstrator hung a banner on a nearby gate reading “Welcome Heartland Institute Scum”.

“Global warming is a global hustle,” said David Rothbard, CFACT’s director, arguing that the result of a climate deal would be a loss of U.S. sovereignty.

#

Photos:

Protesters:

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

 

Embedded image permalink

 

 

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

 


  • george walden

    Oops! Looks like you lost your pic of our banner – here you go.

    • Tunder Bar

      Where do you guys get your funding for all these quality props and signage?

      • george walden

        Glad you asked. My personal checking account. $160 print job at FedEx kinkos. Great experience all around.

        • realheadline

          Anyone dumb enough to join a climate cult is too dumb to hold a regular job. Did you use your EBT card to pay for that?

        • Hipnosis

          Impossibe, by the way, without oil.

          • george walden

            Correct. I am not reflexively anti oil as most deniers like to believe. We need it for many purposes for which here are no substitute. But we could easily use about 80% less and be just fine. And, we’d get to preserve a livable biosphere – not a minor consideration.

          • jeffersonian_nc

            And how would we cut it by 80% “easily”? 80% of oil is used for transportation.

        • Tunder Bar

          Who do you work for?

    • agwscam

      Here’s another picture of George and his band on idiots:

  • DaveyD

    The reaction of the attendees was perfect- not swimming in the alarmists’ mud.

  • DiogenesDespairs

    When dealing with warmest, hard facts are helpful. Here are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming rational people should know. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

    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, averages (over a year) 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 about 0.6 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] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

    [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.

    • Tricia Harrison

      .❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h.Learn More right Here….
      pf…..
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportOnline/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

    • trevormarr

      Awesome, I will share this!!!

  • Mnestheus

    So where’s the picture of the packed house ?

  • Claraver

    I’m sure ‘Our ABC’ will be screening Climate Hustle at peak viewing time in keeping with their journalism balance and adherence to the broadcasting charter.

  • Graphic_Conception

    I see the Streisand Effect is still alive and well in Paris 🙂
    Excellent job!

  • trevormarr

    Exactly DiogenesDespairs!!! I have far more fear of a life without fossil fuel, than I will ever fear life with it!!! In 2015, AGW now stands for ‘Al Gore’s Wrong’!!!

    I can’t wait to see the film! Keep up the Great work at Climate Depot Marc!!! Reality mocks the Climate Cult!

  • dhjiph8uds

    They all act like is all so new to them and that they got the ‘If Kitty Dukakis was raped and murdered’ question.

    They didn’t like it when CNBS asked them questions.
    They didn’t like it when CNN asked them questions.
    They didn’t like it when FOX asked them questions.

    Apparently, the C in RNC must stand for ‘chronic complainers’….