Close this search box.

Search Results for: report thousand scientists dissent

‘Untruth Industry’: Journalist Society Weaponizing Disinformation: ‘Climate Reporters Push Prohibition of Oil & Natural Gas Voices’ By Aaron Johnson A leading group of climate journalists is campaigning in 2023 to weaponize claims of “disinformation” and bar voices supporting oil and natural gas from news stories. Ironically, based on their own standards these reporters are advancing disinformation of their own. The Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ), an association of 1,400 reporters that’s funded in large part by billion-dollar, anti-fossil fuel philanthropies, recently kicked off a campaign to promote its “2023 Journalists’ Guide to Energy & Environment.” As an extension of the campaign, SEJ and its leaders are pushing reporters across the country to exclude views that run counter to theirs in climate stories. The following highlights several recent comments by SEJ leadership and its members. Science is Hard, But Misinformation is Easy Kicking off the campaign, SEJ hosted a training webinar last week featuring reporters from NPR’s national desk, Vox, the L.A. Times, and Boise State Public Radio. SEJ board member and Vox reporter Rebecca Leber tackled the recent controversy around bans on natural gas stoves following statements by a member of the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission. Leber’s stated goal as an SEJ leader is to “broaden this out beyond this blowup we saw” and to “look at all of the other kinds of problems and solutions and misinformation circulating around this issue.” Targeting misinformation is easy for Leber. Despite tepid acknowledgement that “it can be really hard to parse what is real, what is fiction, and how to interpret the scientific studies,” she’s quick to take sides. She noted, “There’s also lots of misinformation going around, a lot propped up by gas utilities that have a stake in whether the economy is making this energy transition.” She went on to caution against elevating industry sources, stating, “It turned out that some of these voices that you might often see in some articles, or just loudly on social media who are the biggest protesters against electrification campaigns, some of these people have direct ties and financial interests in the gas industry. They either paid for these posts or there is other kinds of connections, like trade groups that are working with the gas industry.” She concluded, “So I think in exposing these campaigns, it can really tell us a lot about how social media can be weaponized here to oppose climate policy as well. I think it’s something that journalists have to be on guard in our reporting, because this is a huge source for disinformation.” ​​“You can’t handle the truth!” Echoing her comments, panel moderator Tom Michael of Boise State Public Radio assertively stated, “As these pressure groups are obviously going to ramp up, it’ll be incumbent on us as journalists to be able to find the truth.” We agree! Based on the standards presented by Leber’s, the truth that should be reported on campaigns to ban natural gas stoves is climate activist groups are colluding with each other. Notably, the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), which conducted an often-cited study on indoor air emissions that’s used to advance such bans, was a key participant in a 2019 secret summit of activist groups, local elected officials, and dark money groups that plotted out these campaigns. The Alliance’s Western Wire unearthed the details when mainstream media did not. Additionally, it should be reported that SEJ, Vox, and RMI are financially tied together by a network of billion-dollar activist philanthropies—including the ClimateWorks Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and many others—that fund unreliable science, lobbying campaigns, and partisan journalism. The truth is media tied to this network aren’t going to self-report on their own conflicts of interest. Dissenting Voices are Red Herrings L.A. Times climate reporter Sammy Roth addressed a question during SEJ’s webinar about the responsibility journalists have in including dissenting voices in stories, particularly from “lobbyists and these pressure groups.” Roth pointedly said, “I definitely don’t include climate denial voices in my stories,” and called them “red herrings.” Lumped in with climate deniers, he boasted about excluding “what you hear from the oil and gas industry and politicians that are aligned with them. You know, interest groups that are pushing a real fossil fuel narrative to the extent that they’re making arguments that are clearly out of line with what the science says is necessary.” Roth went on to advocate for excluding sources that say, “a climate future is still compatible with continued new oil and gas extraction projects that, you know, that there’s no feasible way to you know, to reorient an economy without fossil fuels.” Based on these standards, Roth also shouldn’t cite federal agencies under the Biden Administration, such as the Energy Information Administration, that report oil and natural gas consumption will continue to increase to at least 2050. Malarkey As part of SEJ’s reporter education campaign, the group also compiled a lengthy special report. It’s full of how-to tip sheets like an SEJ Issue Backgrounder entitled, “Disinformation Presents New Challenges to Environmental Journalists.” SEJ Editorial Advisory Board member and editor Joseph Davis wrote the piece, and he claims pro-oil-and-natural-gas sources are “malarkey.” He writes, “A lot of the sources available in the public sphere are blowing smoke. As well as emitting it. Disinformation is a big challenge for environmental journalists.” He compares the old days when “who-what-where journalism was often enough” to today’s environment where “there seems to be much more information that is untrue, intentionally misleading … and generously paid for.” As a solution, he advocates for only including favorable climate sources in stories by cautioning writers against being “both-sides journalists.” In light of these claims, I recently wrote a letter to the association highlighting concerns we have about SEJ’s campaign. I highlighted the fact that science developed by our industry is the work of tens of thousands of diverse scientists and engineers, and I called on the association to avoid promoting extremes in news reporting. SEJ editor Adam Glenn responded, stating, “What we publish in SEJournal Online does not represent the views of the Society of Environmental Journalists, but rather the voices of independent journalists who generally have extensive experience in this field.” So despite the fact that the document was published under the masthead of the professional association, it was written by an SEJ-compensated writer, and posted on SEJ’s website, he’s claiming the material doesn’t represent the views of his organization. The claim, of course, is disinformation.

Crying over ‘climate change’ – Tears, sobbing, & ‘climate grief’ is an actual thing for activists – Special Report

Climate Depot Special Report Crying over “climate change” is a thing for activists. A weatherman breaks down in tears and considers having a vasectomy, vows NEVER to fly again due to grim UN climate report: Eric Holthaus tweeted ‘no children, happy to go extinct’ – Holthaus: “I just broke down in tears in boarding area at SFO while on phone with my wife. I’ve never cried because of a science report before. #IPCC,’ was his first tweet on around 2pm on Friday.”  – “I realised just now: This has to be the last flight I ever take. I’m committing right now to stop flying. It’s not worth the climate,’ he tweeted a few minutes late.” Warmist Meteorologist: ‘Climate Change’ and Trump Have Driven Me to Therapy – Meteorologist Eric Holthaus: ‘I know many people feel deep despair about climate, especially post-election.” And it’s because of this, “There are days where I literally can’t work,” and “We don’t deserve this planet.’ Flashback 2007: The Crying Dutchman: UN’s Yvo de Boer breaks down into ‘flood of tears’ after warning that failure to reach climate deal could ‘plunge the world into conflict’ –  Yvo de Boer on left breaks down in tears during UN climate meeting – Photograph: Mast Irham/EPA “After 12 exhausting days of trying to reach a worldwide agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was suddenly all too much for Yvo de Boer. As the 200-nation Bali conference wrangled over a minor procedural matter, the Dutch diplomat in charge of the talks burst into tears and had to be led away by colleagues.” – Moments earlier, Mr de Boer had been warning delegates that failure to reach an agreement on global warming could “plunge the world into conflict”. – As his unfinished sentences trailed away, he broke down and walked off the platform to supportive applause. “He wasn’t just wiping his eyes, he was in floods of tears,” said one observer. “Three colleagues – one of them a woman – formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic.” UK Guardian: The 2007 UN climate summit in Bali, Indonesia. As talks drag on, De Boer buries his face in his hands – and ultimately had to be led from the chamber in tears. The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon (left), and Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang (right), look on – not entirely sympathetically. De Boer’s tears ‘helped force US negotiators into a crucial compromise’ ‘I mourned waking up’: NASA climate scientist Peter Kalmus of Jet Propulsion Lab reveals how “tears poured down” when he thought about the calamity of man-made climate change.: In his 2018 article, “Thoughts on Climate Action From a Scientist Who Gave Up Flying,” Kalmus: “In order to embrace what’s coming next, I had to let go of what went before. My grief was like the leap of a trapeze artist, letting go of one trapeze, flying through space, and catching the next one. There were times when tears poured down. I mourned the world I’d known my whole life. I mourned my children’s future. I mourned how avoidable this all was. I mourned the strange and hard reality, and I mourned waking up. I mourned every blow struck in anger, and I mourned every bullet fired. I mourned all the species that are leaving us, never to return. I mourned this whole beautiful Earth. But then, through these tears, I accepted reality as it is. Somehow, on the far side of the tears, I found the strength to go forward.” Update 2022: Nasa climate scientist Peter Kalmus breaks down in tears at protest – In an emotional speech last week in Los Angeles, Nasa scientist Peter Kalmus implored people to listen to the dire warnings of climate change experts. “We’re going to lose everything,” Kalmus said in a video of the moment. “And we’re not joking, we’re not lying, we’re not exaggerating.” Dr Kalmus, a climate scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, was participating in a protest organized by Scientist Rebellion as part of a global day of action by scientists around the world. His protest in LA involved scientists chaining themselves to the doors of a JPMorgan Chase building. ‘Nasa climate scientist Kalmus weeps at protest over climate crisis’ 2010: Watch: UN’s Christiana Figueres Breaks Down in Tears, Tells Youth That Cancun Will Be ‘Insufficient’ But A Necessary Step Christiana Figueres Tells Youth that they motivate her. “It’s you. It’s you. It’s the next generation.” Then she breaks down in tears. The teary-eyed part above (at the 1:18 mark). Flashback 2007: Crying Activist Part 3: NPR: Laurie David on her climate awakening: ‘I remember crying every day at five in the afternoon’ Excerpt from The new book,  ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ By Marc Morano: The Crying Climate Activist Laurie David, the producer of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, has told the story of her eye-opening conversion to climate activist. “My concerns about global warming began soon after we had our first child. I was a new mom, feeling very overwhelmed with the realization that I was now irreversibly responsible for this tiny creature. There was no turning back. I remember crying every day at five in the afternoon, the witching hour, my stress level at a breaking point. . . . I spent a lot of time walking around the neighborhood, pushing a stroller. I started noticing an enormous amount of SUVs on the street. Everyone was driving them. . . . So, every time you drove somewhere, to the store, the school, the freeway, you were now all of a sudden doubling your personal CO2 pollution. I panicked because everyone I knew was driving them. I had had other lightbulb moments in my life—like the first time I tasted good wine and then couldn’t drink the cheap stuff any more. . . .” “After connecting the dots when I became a mom, I made it my job to educate myself about the environment and global warming.” David came out of climate retirement in 2017, prompted by Donald Trump’s presidential victory. “After the election, it took me two weeks to just stop crying. I was just anticipating what was to come and what has come was worse than what I was crying about,” David told the Hollywood Reporter.  She is becoming known as the crying activist. David says she also wept for three days and three nights when John Kerry lost the presidency in 2004. According to the Guardian, “she cried because, in her mind, the end of the planet as we know it had just got that much closer. End book excerpt Global warming scaremongering: Children in tears — ‘This is what happens when a mother, who has been brainwashed tells her children about the forthcoming climate armageddon’ – Mom to her kids: ‘Every time we get in the car we contribute to climate change…I tell them that they have just lived through hottest decade ever recorded. I tell them recent flooding submerged 1/5 of land surface of Pakistan, washing away 7,000 schools. I tell them Arctic is melting, hurricanes are getting stronger, droughts are lengthening, & rainfall records are being shattered. By end of conversation, they’re in tears’ Tears at UN climate summit in 2013: At the UN’s COP19 climate summit, in Warsaw in 2013, Philippines lead negotiator Yeb Sano broke down in tears during the middle of his address. He also pledged that he would be fasting for the duration of the UN climate talks. See video at 3:15 seconds.   Founder of the climate activist organization,, Bill McKibben, wrote an essay crying about wilting corn during a heatwave earning him the title of “weepy Bill’: McKibben: “But my tears started before anyone said a word. As the service started, dozens choristers from around the world carried three things down the aisle and to the altar: pieces of dead coral bleached by hot ocean temperatures; stones uncovered by retreating glaciers; and small, shriveled ears of corn from drought-stricken parts of Africa.” Study links Emotionalism and Global Warming: “The study found that discrete emotions were stronger predictors of global warming policy support than cultural worldviews, negative affect, image associations, or sociodemographic variables. In particular, worry, interest, and hope were strongly associated with increased policy support. The results contribute to experiential theories of risk information processing and suggest that discrete emotions play a significant role in public support for climate change policy.” NBC News 2018: ‘Dire climate reports’ intensifying mental health effects of ‘global warming’ – ‘Climate grief’ – Kids in tears after UN IPCC report – NBC News: When the U.N. released its latest climate report in October, it warned that without “unprecedented” action, catastrophic conditions could arrive by 2040. For Amy Jordan, 40, of Salt Lake City, a mother of three teenage children, the report caused a “crisis.” “The emotional reaction of my kids was severe,” she told NBC News. “There was a lot of crying. They told me, ‘We know what’s coming, and it’s going to be really rough.’” Watch: Girl, 11, makes tearful climate plea: ‘I love our planet and I don’t want it to ever stop’ – 2019 – This is the moment an emotional 11-year-old girl broke down in tears during a climate change rally. Iris was speaking at a protest in Truro, south-west England, on Friday when it all became too much for her. “I love our planet and I don’t want it ever to stop,” said Iris, with other children surrounding her outside county hall in the Cornish city. “If we do want everything to stop then we’re going the right way about it at the moment.” “This isn’t good,” she added, beginning to cry. 2018 STUDY: ‘Global warming’ causing an increase in ‘ecological grief’ – Published in the journal Nature Climate Change – A new study appearing in the journal Nature Climate Change, claims that “global warming” is causing an increase in “ecological grief.” “Climate change is increasingly understood to impact mental health through multiple pathways of risk, including intense feelings of grief as people suffer climate-related losses to valued species, ecosystems and landscapes,” noted the study published in April 2018. The study contends: “We argue that grief is a natural and legitimate response to ecological loss, and one that may become more common as climate impacts worsen…we offer future research directions for the study of ecological grief.” ‘Good Grief!’ Climate Change Makes Warmists Depressed & Gives Them ‘Literal Nightmares’ 2019: Tears outside PM’s office as students skip school to demand climate action again – Video – There were tears outside Scott Morrison’s office in Sydney’s south, but the biggest crowds were in Melbourne where thousands of students skipped school to demand action on climate change. … Stella Brazier, 14, burst into tears when asked about her decision to attend. “It just upsets me so much because I just don’t know if they [politicians] are going to do anything,” she said. “What’s going to happen to humankind, what’s going to happen to the whole world?” 2019: Greta Thunberg addressed world leaders through tears: ‘How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.’ Update 2021: ‘Sink into your grief’: How a ‘sustainability’ scientist confronts her ‘feelings of sadness’ over ‘climate change’ Sustainability scientist Kimberly Nicholas new book, Under the Sky We Make: How to Be Human in a Warming World:  “She has struggled to address her feelings of sadness.” … Q: You write that your own approach has included learning to “sink into your grief.” A: There are things that are changing beyond recognition right now from climate change, and that makes me really sad. And to me, grieving is an important part of the process of acknowledging that. It does draw from my experience of losing a dear friend to cancer, who died at 37. … it shouldn’t take a terminal diagnosis for life on Earth to wake us up to the urgency of working for climate stability.” 2018 STUDY: Concern over climate change linked to depression, anxiety – ‘Restless nights, feelings of loneliness and lethargy’ – Depression and anxiety are afflicting Americans who are concerned at the fate of the environment, according to a study of the mental health effects of climate change. Those hit hardest are women and people with low incomes who worry about the planet’s long-term health, said the study published this week in the journal Global Environmental Change. ‘We’re going to need more psychologists!’ – ‘Climate change will have significant negative impacts on health & psychological well-being’ –  “Likely effects, which will increase as climate change’s physical impacts accelerate, include stress, anxiety, depression and a loss of community identity, says a new report from the American Psychological Association and ecoAmerica. Climate change is also likely to result in an increase in post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions because of the rise in the number and severity of natural disasters, according to the report. Climate change could also lead to increased feelings of loss and helplessness if individuals and communities are forced to relocate. “The striking thing is how these effects will permeate so many aspects of our daily lives,” said Norman B. Anderson, PhD, CEO of the American Psychological Association. Update 2021: BUST: ‘I am deeply sorry’: UN climate summit ends in tears – Greta sums up as ‘Blah, blah, blah’ – COP 26 president apologizes in tears after UN climate conference failure As he made his closing remarks COP 26 President Alok Sharma, MP hung his head and proclaimed through tears, “May I just say to all delegates, I apologize for the way this process has unfolded and I am deeply sorry.” # 2022: West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin announces no vote on climate pork barrel spending and activists’ tears flow: The New York Times quoted a University of California professor who said she was ‘sobbing’ at this news. (Dr. Leah C. Stokes on Twitter: “Manchin says he won’t support the climate bill. I’m holding my children and sobbing.”  Related Links: ‘Good Grief!’ Climate Change Makes Warmists Depressed & Gives Them ‘Literal Nightmares’ EnvironMENTAL: Support group provides ‘a safe space for confronting climate grief’ – ‘The Problem With Climate Catastrophizing’ -Foreign Affairs Mag: ‘The Problem With Climate Catastrophizing – The Case for Calm’ (Written by Oren Cass) Climate researchers and activists, according to a 2015 Esquire feature, “When the End of Human Civilization is Your Day Job,” suffer from depression and PTSD-like symptoms. The Washington Post offers “the 7 psychological reasons that are stopping us from acting on climate change.” ‘Catastrophism can also lead to the trampling of democratic norms. It has produced calls for the investigation and prosecution of dissenters and disregard for constitutional limitations on government power.’ ‘And yet, such catastrophizing is not justified by the science or economics of climate change. Working with a catastrophic mindset and a century-long timeline, one can construct an apocalyptic scenario from almost any problem.’ Doctor groups take up ‘global warming’ advocacy – ‘Will tell the public their health is threatened by’ man-made climate – Patients should be prepared for future meetings with their doctors to include discussions of global warming. Claim: ‘Every region in the continental U.S. is at risk of more mental health problems and threats to well-being from climate change’ – Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. responded with a ‘bullshit meter’ rating the claim as ‘total BS’ Psychoterratica — environmentally induced mental distress Warmist Joe Romm claims ‘higher CO2 levels directly harm human cognition’ & ‘Global Warming Threatens Labor Productivity’ Gore’s new health warning: ‘Every organ system can be affected by climate change’ The new book,  ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ By Marc Morano, details how climate activists are attempting to link mental health and “global warming.” See: Sold out! Politically Incorrect Climate Book sells out at Amazon, Target & Walmart! Ranked as ‘Best Seller’ Book excerpt:  “Stress, Anxiety, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” – A 2014 report by the American Psychological Association (APA) and ecoAmerica, an environmental advocacy group, titled “Beyond Storms and Droughts: The Psychological Impacts of Climate Change,” claimed that extreme weather fueled by man-made climate change “will mean more stress, anxiety, PTSD in the Future” as well as growing “substance abuse” and “broad psychological impacts.” In addition, a prominent climate activist took his own life to protest fossil fuel use in a New York City park. ‘As radicalized as the Islamic suicide attackers’ – Green activist burns himself to death to protest ‘global warming’ The authors of the new study claim: “We anticipate, along with a small but growing number of scholars, that ecological grief will become an increasingly common human response to the losses encountered in the anthropocene. To bear witness to ecological losses personally, or to the suffering encountered by others as they bear their own losses, is to be reminded that climate change is not just an abstract scientific concept.” The study notes that “climate change” is “the source of much hitherto unacknowledged emotional and psychological pain, particularly for people who remain deeply connected to, and observant of, the natural world.” See Full Study here: Nature Climate Change – VOL 8 | APRIL 2018 | 275–281 | Study Excerpts: “Climate change is increasingly understood to impact mental health through multiple pathways of risk, including intense feelings of grief as people suffer climate-related losses to valued species, ecosystems and landscapes. Despite growing research interest, ecologically driven grief, or ‘ecological grief’, remains an underdeveloped area of inquiry. We argue that grief is a natural and legitimate response to ecological loss, and one that may become more common as climate impacts worsen. Drawing upon our own research in Northern Canada and the Australian Wheatbelt, combined with a synthesis of the literature, we offer future research directions for the study of ecological grief.” … Examples of “ecological grief” presented in the paper: “I can’t stand the place blowing away. Dust! I get in bed and pull the rugs over my head so I can’t see it.” “Inuit are people of the sea ice. If there is no more sea ice, how can we be people of the sea ice?” “There is nothing else [we can do], we can’t dwell on it. Then we would be all suicidal. You just have to do the best you can with what change is coming.” … “Gradual and cumulative losses in the physical environment can also invoke complex grief responses due to the various personal and collective meanings attached to them.” Study Conclusion: Throughout this Perspective, we seek to present ecological grief as a legitimate form of grief felt in response to experienced or anticipated losses in the natural world and outlined what we believe are both important and urgent areas for future research. Given that we are living in a time of extraordinary ecological loss, and that these losses will not end any time soon, we anticipate, along with a small but growing number of scholars, that ecological grief will become an increasingly common human response to the losses encountered in the anthropocene. To bear witness to ecological losses personally, or to the suffering encountered by others as they bear their own losses, is to be reminded that climate change is not just an abstract scientific concept. Rather, it is the source of much hitherto unacknowledged emotional and psychological pain, particularly for people who remain deeply connected to, and observant of, the natural world. And while there are still many questions surrounding the concept of ecological grief, we contend that it is a powerful and useful concept, which allows people to articulate for themselves how this period of extraordinary ecological decline is affecting themselves and their communities. Confronting ecological grief will be difficult and challenging work, both professionally and affectively. Indeed, to seriously engage with the concept of ecological grief is to become open, in a personal sense, to the magnitude of the ecological challenges facing our global society. There is much (grief ) work to be done, and we need to do this work individually and collectively, publicly and privately, ethically and politically, in order to enhance our understanding of climate change impacts, and to expand discussions on what is to be done. Here we find solace in the words of Parkes and Prigerson who remind us that to grieve is to find strength and maturity, and that ultimately grief might just be the “price we pay for love”. “In many respects, then, grief can be regarded as an illness. But it can also bring strength. Just as broken bones may end up stronger than unbroken ones, so the experience of grieving can strengthen and bring maturity to those who have previously been protected from misfortune. The pain of grief is just as much a part of life as the joy of love; it is, perhaps, the price we pay for love, the cost of commitment. To ignore this fact, or to pretend it is not so, is to put on emotional blinkers, which leave us unprepared for the losses that will inevitably occur in our lives and unprepared to help others to cope with the losses in theirs.” End Excerpt #

90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Climate Petition: ‘UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS’ – Catastrophic Predictions ‘NOT REALISTIC’ 90 Italian scientists sign petition addressed to Italian leaders To the President of the Republic To the President of the Senate To the President of the Chamber of Deputies To the President of the Council PETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming) The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge. In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable. But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet. In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere. This is the thesis of anthropic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures do not are immediately adopted. In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressed, even by a throbbing propaganda, to adopt increasingly demanding programs whose implementation, which involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states, it would depend on climate control and, therefore, the “salvation” of the planet. However, the anthropic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models . On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce. This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850. The anthropic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC. The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity. Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period. These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models. It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface. Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years. These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier. The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C  [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016. The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle. For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation . The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO 2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation. The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain. It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1 ° C to a maximum of 5 ° C. This uncertainty is enormous. In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models. Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data. All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations. Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed. However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory . In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today. There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropic global warming. These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature does not the activity of Man governs the climate ”. In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they do not adhere to policies of uncritical reduction of the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF GOVERNING THE CLIMATE.…/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-…/… PROMOTING COMMITTEE: Uberto Crescenti, Emeritus Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, formerly Rector and President of the Italian Geological Society. Giuliano Panza, Professor of Seismology, University of Trieste, Academician of the Lincei and of the National Academy of Sciences, called of the XL, 2018 International Award of the American Geophysical Union. Alberto Prestininzi, Professor of Applied Geology, La Sapienza University, Rome, formerly Scientific Editor in Chief of the magazine International IJEGE and Director of the Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center. Franco Prodi, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Ferrara. Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Galileo Movement 2001. Mario Giaccio, Professor of Technology and Economics of Energy Sources, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, former Dean of the Faculty of Economics. Enrico Miccadei, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Atmospheric Physics and Oceanography, Federico II University, Naples. SIGNATORIES Antonino Zichichi, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Bologna, Founder and President of the Ettore Center for Scientific Culture Majorana di Erice. Renato Angelo Ricci, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Padua, former President of the Italian Society of Physics and Society European Physics; Galileo Movement 2001. Aurelio Misiti, Professor of Health-Environmental Engineering, University of Sapienza, Rome. Antonio Brambati, Professor of Sedimentology, University of Trieste, Project Manager Paleoclima-mare of PNRA, already President of the National Oceanography Commission. Cesare Barbieri, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, University of Padua. 6. Sergio Bartalucci, Physicist, President of the Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research. 7. Antonio Bianchini, Professor of Astronomy, University of Padua. 8. Paolo Bonifazi, former Director of the Institute of Interplanetary Space Physics, National Astrophysical Institute. 9. Francesca Bozzano, Professor of Applied Geology, Sapienza University of Rome, Director of the CERI Research Center. 10. Marcello Buccolini, Professor of Geomorphology, University University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. 11. Paolo Budetta, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Naples. 12. Monia Calista, Researcher in Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. 13. Giovanni Carboni, Professor of Physics, Tor Vergata University, Rome; Galileo Movement 2001. 14. Franco Casali, Professor of Physics, University of Bologna and Bologna Academy of Sciences. 15. Giuliano Ceradelli, Engineer and climatologist, ALDAI. 16. Domenico Corradini, Professor of Historical Geology, University of Modena. 17. Fulvio Crisciani, Professor of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, University of Trieste and Marine Sciences Institute, Cnr, Trieste. 18. Carlo Esposito, Professor of Remote Sensing, La Sapienza University, Rome. 19. Mario Floris, Professor of Remote Sensing, University of Padua. 20. Gianni Fochi, Chemist, Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa; scientific journalist. 21. Mario Gaeta, Professor of Volcanology, La Sapienza University, Rome. 22. Giuseppe Gambolati, Fellow of the American Geophysica Union, Professor of Numerical Methods, University of Padua. 23. Rinaldo Genevois, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Padua. 24. Carlo Lombardi, Professor of Nuclear Plants, Milan Polytechnic. 25. Luigi Marino, Geologist, Geological Risk Forecasting and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome. 26. Salvatore Martino, Professor of Seismic Microzonation, La Sapienza University, Rome. 27. Paolo Mazzanti, Professor of Satellite Interferometry, La Sapienza University, Rome. 28. Adriano Mazzarella, Professor of Meteorology and Climatology, University of Naples. 29. Carlo Merli, Professor of Environmental Technologies, La Sapienza University, Rome. 30. Alberto Mirandola, Professor of Applied Energetics and President of the Research Doctorate in Energy, University of Padua. 31. Renzo Mosetti, Professor of Oceanography, University of Trieste, former Director of the Department of Oceanography, Istituto OGS, Trieste. 32.Daniela Novembre, Researcher in Mining Geological Resources and Mineralogical Applications, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti Pescara. 33. Sergio Ortolani, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Padua. 34. Antonio Pasculli, Researcher of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. 35. Ernesto Pedrocchi, Professor Emeritus of Energetics, Polytechnic of Milan. 36. Tommaso Piacentini, Professor of Physical Geography and Geomorphology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. 37. Guido Possa, nuclear engineer, formerly Deputy Minister Miur. 38. Mario Luigi Rainone, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Chieti-Pescara. 39. Francesca Quercia, Geologist, Research Director, Ispra. 40. Giancarlo Ruocco, Professor of Structure of Matter, La Sapienza University, Rome. 41. Sergio Rusi, Professor of Hydrogeology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. 42. Massimo Salleolini, Professor of Applied Hydrogeology and Environmental Hydrology, University of Siena. 43. Emanuele Scalcione, Head of Regional Agrometeorological Service Alsia, Basilicata. 44. Nicola Sciarra, Professor of Applied Geology, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. 45. Leonello Serva, Geologist, Director of Geological Services of Italy; Galileo Movement 2001. 46. Luigi Stedile, Geologist, Geological Risk Review and Control Research Center, La Sapienza University, Rome. 47. Giorgio Trenta, Physicist and Physician, President Emeritus of the Italian Association of Medical Radiation Protection; Galileo Movement 2001. 48. Gianluca Valenzise, Director of Research, National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Rome. 49. Corrado Venturini, Professor of Structural Geology, University of Bologna. 50. Franco Zavatti, Astronomy Researcher, University of Bologna. 51. Achille Balduzzi, Geologist, Agip-Eni. 52. Claudio Borri, Professor of Construction Sciences, University of Florence, Coordinator of the International Doctorate in Engineering Civil. 53. Pino Cippitelli, Agip-Eni Geologist. 54. Franco Di Cesare, Executive, Agip-Eni. 55. Serena Doria, Researcher of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. 56. Enzo Siviero, Professor of Ponti, University of Venice, Rector of the e-Campus University. 57. Pietro Agostini, Engineer, Association of Scientists and Tecnolgi for Italian Research. 58. Donato Barone, Engineer. 59. Roberto Bonucchi, Teacher. 60. Gianfranco Brignoli, Geologist. 61. Alessandro Chiaudani, Ph.D. agronomist, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. 62. Antonio Clemente, Researcher in Urban Planning, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. 63. Luigi Fressoia, urban architect, Perugia. 64. Sabino Gallo, nuclear engineer. 65. Daniela Giannessi, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa. 66. Roberto Grassi, Engineer, Director of G&G, Rome. 67. Alberto Lagi, Engineer, President of Restoration of Complex Damaged Plants. 68. Luciano Lepori, Ipcf-Cnr Researcher, Pisa. 69. Roberto Madrigali, Metereologo. 70. Ludovica Manusardi, Nuclear physicist and scientific journalist, Ugis. 71. Maria Massullo, Technologist, Enea-Casaccia, Rome. 72. Enrico Matteoli, First Researcher, Ipcf-Cnr, Pisa. 73. Gabriella Mincione, Professor of Sciences and Techniques of Laboratory Medicine, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara. 74. Massimo Pallotta, First Technologist, National Institute for Nuclear Physics. 75. Enzo Pennetta, Professor of Natural Sciences and scientific divulger. 76. Nunzia Radatti, Chemist, Sogin. 77. Vincenzo Romanello, Nuclear Engineer, Research Center, Rez, Czech Republic. 78. Alberto Rota, Engineer, Researcher at Cise and Enel. 79. Massimo Sepielli, Director of Research, Enea, Rome. 80. Ugo Spezia, Engineer, Industrial Safety Manager, Sogin; Galileo Movement 2001. 81. Emilio Stefani, Professor of Plant Pathology, University of Modena. 82. Umberto Tirelli, Visiting Senior Scientist, Istituto Tumori d’Aviano; Galileo Movement 2001. 83. Roberto Vacca, Engineer and scientific writer.

Video & Submitted Written Congressional Testimony of Marc Morano – Examining UN Species/Climate Report – UN report is ‘authoritative propaganda’

Watch Full here below: Morano’s oral testimony is at 37:30 & Dr. Patrick Moore’s is at 32 min.  Submitted Written Testimony of Marc Morano, Publisher of CFACT’s Climate Depot Author of Best Selling “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change” & former staff of U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife “Responding to the Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 Time: 10:00 AM Location: Longworth House Office Building 1324 Testimony is also available on Congressional website here. I want to thank the House Natural Resources Committee for hosting this hearing on the UN species report. My background is in political science, which happens to be an ideal background for examining the latest round of UN environmental claims. I have been following the UN species reports since 2010 when the UN first announced they were going to be elevating species to near the level of climate as a concern. See: 2010: Global Warming? Never heard of it! Hollywood backing Biodiversity/Species Shift! Earth is ‘at a tipping point’, warns actor Harrison Ford at UN Biodiversity Conference Dr. Patrick Moore & Morano during the hearing As a lifelong conservationist, I share concerns about the Earth’s biodiversity and particularly concerns about threats to species. I have advocated for a clean, healthy planet with a co-existence of humans and plants and animals. But, as an investigative journalist studying the United Nations for decades, there is only one conclusion to be made of this new report: The UN’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), hypes and distorts biodiversity issues for lobbying purposes. This report is the latest UN appeal to give it more power, more scientific authority, more money, and more regulatory control. According to media reports, the UN species report requires that “a huge transformation is needed across the economy and society to protect and restore nature…” Morano’s opening statement to Congress holding up his book as UN’s Bob Watson (right) looks away And just how does the UN justify this “huge transformation” of economics and society which it will lead? By invoking what the UN describes as “authoritative science” produced by — the UN of itself of course. UN IPBES Executive Secretary, Dr. Anne Larigauderie declared: The “IPBES presents the authoritative science, knowledge and the policy options to decision makers for their consideration.” The UN boasts it is producing “authoritative science” on biodiversity! The UN’s biodiversity’s panel claims it is representing “authoritative science.” But these unsupportable boasts will no longer be tolerated.   At best, the UN science panels represent nothing more than “authoritative bureaucracy”, claiming they hype the problem and then come up with the solution that puts them in charge of “solving” the issue in perpetuity. A more accurate term for the UN than “authoritative science” may be “authoritative propaganda.” I am the author of the best-selling 2018 book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” reissued in 2019 with a bonus chapter on the Green New Deal. I have attended nearly every United Nations environmental summit since 2002, including the Earth Summits in Johannesburg South Africa and Rio in Brazil. I publicly debated the UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri at the 2006 UN climate summit in Nairobi Kenya. I have conducted interviews with UN IPCC scientists and documented how the UN twists and hypes and distorts science in order to push a political agenda. We know that the past UN IPCC chair, Rajendra Pachauri, declared “global warming is my religion.” Ottmar Edenhofer, former co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 explains the UN agenda. “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” We know that the former UN climate chief called for a “centralized transformation” led by the UN. See: UN climate chief Christiana Figueres seeks ‘centralized transformation’ that is ‘going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different’ Figueres explained, “This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.” Listen to science? The UN claims to be the “authority” on the science and the UN gets to put itself in charge of the “solutions.” How convenient. This new biodiversity report follows the same tainted IPCC procedures that the U.S. Congress must be made aware of. The report is meddled with by UN politicians, bureaucrats as part of the process. “The report’s summary had to be approved by representatives of all 109 nations,” the AP reported. Let’s repeat, “The report’s summary had to be approved by representatives of all 109 nations.” These representatives are not scientists, but they are politicians, subject to lobbying and media pressure and their own self-interests. This is clearly a political process — not a scientific process.   This is the same hijacking of science by politicians and UN bureaucrats that has always occurred in the UN IPCC climate reports. See: UN’s alleged scientific process features “government officials” having a say in each line of the report’s summary See: The UN IPCC Species Con: UN report meddled with by politicians/bureaucrats ‘to muster only one kind of evidence, the kind that promotes UN environmental treaties’ see page 39 of this guide to the IPBES’ internal workings Canadian UN expert Donna Laframboise, who has written several books on the biased UN “scientific” process, explains how this new species report was crafted behind the scenes: “[The UN] draft a summary known as the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). Then politicians and bureaucrats representing national governments attend a plenary meeting where the summary gets examined line-by-line and rewritten…But it gets worse. Over the next few weeks, the text being summarized – the underlying, ostensibly scientific document – will also get changed. That’s not how things normally work, of course. Summaries are supposed to be accurate reflections of longer documents. At the UN, they represent an opportunity to alter those documents, to make them fall into line…This is no sober scientific body, which examines multiple perspectives, and considers alternative hypotheses. The job of the IPBES is to muster only one kind of evidence, the kind that promotes UN environmental treaties.” “That’s how the United Nations works, folks. Machinations in the shadows. Camouflaging its political aspirations by dressing them up in 1,800 pages of scientific clothing.” Laframboise also found a serious lack of transparency in this new UN biodiversity report, giving the report “a failing grade.” See: UN Biodiversity Officials Fail Transparency Test – ‘Provides no CVs for most members of its influential panel’ Within days of the UN’s report release, major questions about the scientific claims began to emerge. See: ANALYSIS: UN’s ‘1 Million’ Extinction Warning Does Not ADD Up – ‘The word ‘suggesting’ is doing a lot of work’ – ‘We’re just supposed to take it on faith’ Analyst Toby Young: “So how exactly did the [UN] IPBES arrive at the magic one million [species at risk] number? It seems we’re just supposed to take it on faith, which the BBC duly did. What about the IPBES’s claim that ‘around 25% of species… are threatened’? That seems a little pessimistic, given that the number of mammals to have become extinct in the past 500 years or so is around 1.4% and only one bird has met the same fate in Europe since 1852. Not bad when you consider how much economic growth there’s been in the past 167 years.” “…All I could find online was a press release put out by the IPBES and a ‘summary’ of the report ‘for policymakers’. The press release states: ‘The report finds that around one million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades.’ It gives no source for this beyond the as-yet-unpublished report, but the summary makes it clear that it’s partly based on data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.” Geologist Gregory Wrightstone just issued a scientific rebuke of the new UN species report. Wrightstone and concluded: “This new [UN] extinction study is just the latest example of misuse and abuse of the scientific process designed to sow fear of an impending climate apocalypse.” Wrightstone called the report “a case study of how those who promote the notion of man-made catastrophic warming manipulate data and facts to spread the most fear, alarm, and disinformation.”   Wrightstone’s research instead found: “A closer review of the most recent information dating back to 1870 reveals that, instead of a frightening increase, extinctions are actually in a significant decline. What is apparent is that the trend of extinctions is declining rather than increasing, just the opposite of what the new report claims. Also, according to the IPBES report, we can expect 25,000 to 30,000 extinctions per year, yet the average over the last 40 years is about 2 species annually. That means the rate would have to multiply by 12,500 to 15,000 to reach the dizzying heights predicted. Nothing on the horizon is likely to achieve even a small fraction of that.” Wrightstone added; “In an incredibly ironic twist that poses a difficult conundrum for those who are intent on saving the planet from our carbon dioxide excesses, the new study reports that the number one cause of predicted extinctions is habitat loss. Yet their solution is to pave over vast stretches of land for industrial-scale solar factories and to construct immense wind factories that will cover forests and grasslands, killing the endangered birds and other species they claim to want to save.” Other analyses of the new UN report were also less than charitable. See: Studies Indicate Species Extinctions Decline With Warming – ‘Since the 1870s, species extinction rates have been plummeting’ – Habitat loss & predator introduction biggest threat — Not warming – May 17, 2019 Analyst Kenneth Richard: “During the last few hundred years, species extinctions primarily occurred due to habitat loss and predator introduction on islands. Extinctions have not been linked to a warming climate or higher CO2 levels. In fact, since the 1870s, species extinction rates have been plummeting.” – “No clear link between mass extinctions and CO2-induced or sudden-onset warming events.” As we await the full report from the UN on Biodiversity, we must note that the UN track record on species claims has not been admirable. 2014: Der Speigel’s Axel Bojanowski: “The IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far. At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, freshwater fish and mollusks. Yet even the icons of catastrophic global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well.” In 2010, the NY Times examined UN species claims. See: NY Times Andrew Revkin: UN IPCC Claims About Extinction ‘confusing’ — NYT: UN IPCC Scientists “acknowledge there was inconsistency and flawed writing’ in extinction section – ‘In the Summary for Policy Makers of the report on climate impacts, there are different summations of extinction risk within a few pages.” UN official on species in 2007: “Every hour, three species disappear. Every day, up to 150 species are lost. Every year, between 18,000 and 55,000 species become extinct.  The cause: human activities. …Climate change is one of the major driving forces behind the unprecedented loss of biodiversity.” — Speech on 21 May 2007 by Ahmed Djoghlaf, then Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Analyst Larry Kummer in 2018 counters these claims: “Those numbers are absurdly large. Also, there are many causes of species extinction. Climate change is today a far smaller factor than habitat loss and pollution (to name just two). Three decades of exaggerations like this have eroded away much of scientists’ credibility.” Contrary scientific studies abound: “Re-assessing current extinction rates” by Neil Stork in Biodiversity and Conservation, February 2010. Gated. Open copy. He cites the overwhelming peer-reviewed research evidence that claims of mass extinctions occurring today are exaggerated or false, and explains the reasons for these errors. Conclusions … “So what can we conclude about extinction rates? First, less than 1% of all organisms are recorded to have become extinct in the last few centuries and there are almost no empirical data to support estimates of current extinctions of 100 or even one species a day.” “Species–area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss” by Fangliang He and Stephen P. Hubbell in Nature, 19 May 2011. Gated. “Extinction from habitat loss is the signature conservation problem of the twenty-first century. Despite its importance, estimating extinction rates is still highly uncertain because no proven direct methods or reliable data exist for verifying extinctions.” John C. Briggs (Prof Marine Science, U South FL) in Science, 14 November 2014. – “Most extinctions have occurred on oceanic islands or in restricted freshwater locations, with very few occurring on Earth’s continents or in the oceans.” Perhaps the most high profile species prediction failure of the UN and former Vice President Al Gore has been with polar bears. Why has Al Gore has gone silent on the extinction scare of polar bears? Gore featured the bears in 2006 film, but how many references to polar bears were in Gore’s 2017 sequel? Five references? Three? No. How about zero. The polar bears were completely absent in his 2017 sequel. The reason? Simple. The polar bear population keeps rising. See: New Study: Polar bears ‘thriving’ as their numbers may have ‘quadrupled’ – Attempts to silence research Alaska’s coordinator for endangered species: ‘Polar bears are at an all-time high of abundance level’ – ‘The only reason the service listed them was based on speculation from fairly untested models based on what the fate of polar bears may be in the future’ This new May 2019 UN report is extrapolating huge future species extinction predictions from a much less alarming current reality and has only released its Summary for Policymakers which is fiddled with by UN politicians and bureaucrats and the underlying science report remains at large. And that underlying report must follow the dictates of the Summary for Policymakers. This UN political process that interferes with the scientific process has been called into question for violating the U.S. science policy guidelines. See: UN IPCC ‘altered’ climate reports violate U.S. science policy guidelines – It is a violation of U.S. government policy to rely on the altered “scientific” reports of the UN IPCC. UN expert Donna Laframboise: U.S. government rules “in no uncertain terms, repudiate the process by which UN climate reports are produced. The US government says political tampering with scientific findings is a violation of scientific integrity. The 2017 DOE policy says:   Under no circumstance may anyone, including a public affairs officer, ask or direct any researcher to alter the record of scientific findings or conclusions.   …personnel will not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings, or intimidate or coerce…others to alter or censor scientific or technological findings or conclusions.     It is important to note that the UN species report is modeled after the UN IPCC process. It has been dubbed an “IPCC clone” or the UN IPCC for species. In the words of former Vice President Al Gore, the UN “torqued up” their scientific claims in order to “get the attention of policymakers around the world.” Remember, this was Al Gore admitting this. Gore’s admission was just the latest in a long line of evidence that the UN climate panel is nothing more than “a purely political body posing as a scientific institution.” See: Gore admits UN IPCC report was ‘torqued up’ to promote political action – ‘How [else] do they get the attention of policy-makers around the world?’ In 2012, a year before the IPCC report came out, former UN climate chief Yvo de Boer announced that the next IPCC report “is going to scare the wits out of everyone.” He added, “I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.” Former UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri admitted the IPCC is an arm of world governments and serves at their “beck and call.” Remember, the UN’s IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is modeled after the UN IPCC climate panel. Pachauri admitted the purpose of the UN IPCC report it to make the case that “action is needed on  climate change.” Pachauri: “There will be enough information provided so that rational people across the globe will see that action is needed on climate change.” Pachauri conceded that the UN IPCC science reports are tailored to meet the political needs of governments: “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call,” Pachauri told the UK Guardian in 2013. Let me clear: I am not talking about the UN and its science reports in some abstract or vague way. I am here to say that the three lead witnesses representing the United Nations today on this new biodiversity report are explicitly part of these UN scientific manipulations. Make no mistake about it, Sir Robert Watson, Dr. Eduardo S. Brondizio and Dr. Yunne Shin, are the leaders of the UN’s bastardization of species endangerment science and are fully engaged in using what they claim to be “science” to lobby for more power and expanding bureaucracy of the United Nations. I repeat: I am not speaking vaguely about the UN. But specifically of the organization represented by these three witnesses today. They are playing the role of science bureaucrats doing the bidding for their political and lobbying prone mother UN organization. As I publicly stated hours after the release of the report: “The UN has juiced up the issue and put themselves in charge of solving it.. That’s called a self-interested lobbying organization.” The head honcho, Robert Watson, (who formerly chaired the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) the man responsible for the UN IPCC sausage making, is here in person today. I say to you Mr. Waston: The U.S. will not be duped by the UN’s “torquing up” (Gore’s own words) of science for your own organization’s self-interest. You personally have helped sculpt and craft science into the predetermined narrative that enriches your organization — the UN. Bob Watson reacts to Morano I will be presenting and submitting for the record, the voices of current and past scientists that reveal the UN’s pre-determined narrative process and expose how the UN’s panels are not rooted in honest science. Actor Harrison Ford urged the UN to hype the species fears for political purposes. “One of our missions is to create a sense of urgency… The urgency can’t be overemphasized… We are at a tipping point… a global agreement is essential,” Ford said in 2010 at the UN summit. When the new UN biodiversity report came out earlier this month in May 2019, I reported and investigated the UN’s claims and found them highly distorted. The UN knows politics. Science is just window dressing. See: UN IPCC is ‘a purely political body posing as a scientific institution’ – Book excerpt – The following is an excerpt from the new 2018 best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. Prof. John Brignell: “The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage, it rapidly attracted acolytes. ‘Peer review’ soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship.” Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning environmental physical chemist from Japan, is another UN IPCC scientist who has turned his back on the UN climate panel. Kiminori declared that global warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” Scientists Outnumbered by Bureaucrats In April 2014 Harvard professor Robert Stavins revealed his disgust with the UN IPCC process for which he was a lead author: “It has been an intense and exceptionally time-consuming process, which recently culminated in a grueling week. . .some 195 country delegations discussed, revised, and ultimately approved (line-by-line) the “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM) . . .the resulting document should probably be called the Summary by Policymakers, rather than the Summary for Policymakers.20 During one session, Stavins said he was one of only two IPCC authors present, surrounded by “45 or 50” government officials. Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was part of the UN IPCC assessments. But Reiter resigned in disgust and declared the “consensus” claims a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, threatened legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added. UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol revealed how business at the UN climate panel, the IPCC, is really conducted. “The fact that there are people, sort of, who are nominally there does not really mean that they support what is going on. I mean, [IPCC] working group two was essentially run by a small clique of people,” Tol said after testifying to the U.S. Congress. “Ultimately a small group forms, and it runs the thing. And unfortunately, those—those—that small group, I would think, are not the most representative or the most balanced or the most unbiased of people.” UN IPCC expert reviewer John McLean agrees. “The reality is that the UN IPCC is in effect little more than a UN-sponsored lobby group, created specifically to investigate and push the ‘man-made warming’ line.” I have been passionate about environmental issues since I began my career in 1991 as a journalist. I produced a documentary on the myths surrounding the Amazon Rainforest in 2000, which dealt extensively claimed species extinctions and how such claims are used to instill fear for political lobbying. I have done extensive investigating reporting on species extinction claims, including how hyped up species concerns are used to shut down American mining and private breeders. One of my stories was a report titled Desert Stormtroopers and how nearly 30 state, local and federal agencies descended onto the Molycorp mine in California’s Mojave desert to protect the threatened Desert Tortoise. Based on these endangered species claims, the mine’s operations were halted, employees were forced to undergo “tortoise sensitivity training” and the U.S. federal government felt compelled to use heavy-handed tactics. It turned out that the Desert Tortoise was not even considered an “endangered” species, but a “threatened” species. Concern over species can be used to justify massive government intrusion into business, private lives and property rights, therefore, it is extremely important that we get the science right. See: Federal court: ‘No CO2 regulation under Endangered Species Act: Federal judge ruled against effort by environmentalists to force Fish & Wildlife Service to regulate greenhouse gases under ESA’ 2014: Polar bear listed as a migratory species by UNEP to restrict oil exploration & extraction Other efforts to “save” species have had mixed and sometimes woeful results. New 2018 report highlights failures of the Endangered Species Act:  “The Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been so ineffective at recovering species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has fabricated a record of success.” – Robert Gordon, The Heritage Foundation…Enacted in 1973, the ESA has managed to “recover” only 40 species, or slightly less than one species per year…“Federally Funded Fiction” – Even worse, almost half of the “recovered” species – 18 out of 40 – are what Gordon calls “federally funded fiction.” It turns out that these 18 “recovered” species were never endangered in the first place and were placed on the endangered species list due to poor data. This, however, has not kept the Department of Interior’s Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) from trumpeting their “recovery” as a success.” During my investigative journalism career, I have reported on the heavy hand of the U.S. government conducted armed raids into private homes of animal breeders all in the name of protecting endangered species. It turns out, the government’s “good intentions” on species resulted in the animals’ deaths on numerous when the animals were seized and left to die in government care.   My 2000 Amazon Rainforest documentary “Clear-cutting the Myths,” exposed the hopeful news on species and the natural world’s biodiversity. Excerpt: “Duke University, published a study on the effects of logging in Indonesian rainforests.  Dr. Charles Cannon examined land both one year and eight years after it had been commercially logged.  What he found surprised many. Indonesia’s forests were recovering quickly from logging operations, with a healthy mix of plant species…Robin Chazdon, an ecologist from the University of Connecticut, has studied tropical rainforests for more than 20 years.  Dr. Chazdon wrote this editorial that accompanied Dr. Cannon’s study in Science Magazine. “I do think that we have underestimated the ability of the forest to regenerate,” Chazon said. Scientific reforestation efforts are paying off in parts of the Amazon. In 1982, miners cleared a large tract of land in western Brazil.  Once finished, they hired scientists to reforest the territory. New studies show that the rejuvenated forest is virtually indistinguishable from its original form. Ninety-five percent of the original animal species have returned. Proponents say these attempts at sustainable logging lowered costs and increased productivity, proving that man and nature can coexist in the Amazon. In addition, the Amazon rainforest documentary explained the context of species extinctions fears. UK scientist Professor Philip Stott, emeritus professor of Biogeography at the University of London, dismissed current species explained in my Amazon rainforest documentary. “The earth has gone through many periods of major extinctions, some much bigger in size than even being contemplated today,” Stott, the author of a book on tropical rainforests, said in the documentary. “Change is necessary to keep up with change in nature itself. In other words, change is the essence. And the idea that we can keep all species that now exist would be anti-evolutionary, anti-nature and anti the very nature of the earth in which we live,” Stott said. I have been anticipating this expansion of the UN mandate into biodiversity and species with this report for many years. Coming Soon: The ‘IPCC for Biodiversity’ – ‘On May 6, long-awaited assessment of State of Nature will be released’ — Stay tuned to hear what it concludes’ – Answer? We are all going to die! Pay up! 2010: Climate Depot’s round up of UN’s ‘sustainable development’ efforts – UN officially throws global warming under the bus?! UN now says the case for saving species ‘more powerful than climate change 2010: Next Eco-Scare is Here! ‘Biodiversity’: The green movement is demoting ‘Climate Change’ in favor of species extinction fears 2012: Time for Next Eco-Scare?! Obama follows lead of green movement and demotes global warming –UN now says case for saving species ‘more powerful than climate change’ # Key points that counter the UN’s species claims from my recent reports: May 6, 2019, by Marc Morano: “Here we go again: UN, Media recycle climate species ‘extinction’ fears – Dredge up discredited Paul Ehrlich” Excerpts: The UN has now officially expanded its mission now to include the “climate change” species extinction scare. The UN is once again calling for putting itself in charge of “solving” the newly hyped species “crisis.” “A huge transformation is needed across the economy and society to protect and restore nature, which provides people with food, medicines, and other materials, crop pollination, fresh water, and quality of life,” according to the new UN species report. The AP quoted one of the activist scientists claiming “this is really our last chance to address all of that.” Hmmm. This is the same “tipping point” tactic the UN has used on climate for years. See: Every climate summit is hailed as the ‘last chance!’ But this is not the first time we have warned about species. As early as 1864, “tipping points” about the “extinction of the species” were issued. And it turns out, economic prosperity may help save the species. See: Analysis: UN claims a million species face extinction? Time to burn fossil fuels to save them! – ‘Best way to save wilderness is to increase the GDP of those in poverty’ Analyst Jo Nova: “Wealthy countries are solving all of these problems faster than poor countries are. The best way to save the wilderness is to increase the GDP of those in poverty. Free trade, fair agricultural markets. Less red tape. Less corruption. We’ve tied up lots of land, so the last thing we want is to use wilderness for useless solar and wind farms, or palm oil plantations. Why keep coal and uranium underground when we can save the forest instead? Again, in nations where there are healthy economies, fish stocks are being protected and are recovering. Whales too. Even great white sharks.” Yet, despite a massive track record of scientific failure about climate and species “crises” the UN, the media and the usual suspect scientists like failed overpopulation guru Paul Ehrlich, are at it again. This latest report has been touted as the IPCC for nature by the UN. “The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) included more than 450 researchers who used 15,000 scientific and government reports. Also See: UN report urges ‘action’: Biodiversity crisis is about to put humanity at risk – 1 million species at risk of annihilation ANALYSIS: UN’s ‘1 Million’ Extinction Warning Does Not ADD Up – ‘The word ‘suggesting’ is doing a lot of work’ – ‘We’re just supposed to take it on faith’ Greenpeace Co-Founder mocks human extinction claim: ‘We are presently the most successful species on the planet’ – Greenpeace Co-Founder & Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore challenges specious species claims: ‘That is so 1970s. Paul Ehrlich is pathetic and has been crying wolf for decades. While he pontificated doom for starving millions in 1970 from his Ivory Tower at Stanford.’ See: 1972 Article Unearthed: ‘Worse than Hitler’: ‘Population Bomb’ author Paul Ehrlich suggested adding a forced sterilization agent to ‘staple food’ and ‘water supply’ – Warned of ‘Unpredictable climatic effects’ — Called on the U.S. to ‘de-develop’ Facts First? CNN Seeks Out Ehrlich, Who’s Always been WRONG on Eco-Disaster Claims 2012: Time for Next Eco-Scare: ‘As the global warming bubble deflates, another scare is being inflated – species extinction’ – ‘History shows that it is the destiny of most species to be destroyed by periodic natural calamities or competition from other species…No species has an assured place on Earth. Some species can adapt and survive – those unable to adapt are removed from the gene pool. Because of Earth’s long turbulent history, most species surviving today are not ‘fragile’ … Moore, in an interview with Climate Depot, refuted the claims of the species study. “The biggest extinction events in the human era occurred 60,000 years ago when humans arrived in Australia, 10-15,000 years ago when humans arrived in the New World, 800 years ago when humans found New Zealand, and 250 years ago when Europeans brought exotic species to the Pacific Islands such as Hawaii,” Moore explained. “Since species extinction became a broad social concern, coinciding with the extinction of the passenger pigeon, we have done a pretty good job of preventing species extinctions,” Moore explained. “I quit my life-long subscription to National Geographic when they published a similar ‘sixth mass extinction’ article in February 1999. This [latest journal] Nature article just re-hashes this theme,” he added. Moore left Greenpeace in 1986 because he felt the organization had become too radical. This is not the first time Moore has gone to battle over alarming claims of species extinction. In the 2000 documentary “Amazon Rainforest: Clear-Cutting The Myths”, Moore bluntly mocked species extinction claims made by biologist Edward O. Wilson from Harvard University. Wilson estimated that up to 50,000 species go extinct every year based on computer models of the number of potential but as yet undiscovered species in the world. Moore said in 2000: “There’s no scientific basis for saying that 50,000 species are going extinct. The only place you can find them is in Edward O. Wilson’s computer at Harvard University. They’re actually electrons on a hard drive. I want a list of Latin names of actual species.” Moore was interviewed by reporter Marc Morano (now with Climate Depot) in the 2000 Amazon rainforest documentary: Environmental activist Tim Keating of Rainforest Relief was asked in the 2000 documentary if he could name any of the alleged 50,000 species that have gone extinct and he was unable. “No, we can’t [name them], because we don’t know what those species are. But most of the species that we’re talking about in those estimates are things like insects and even microorganisms, like bacteria,” Keating explained. Larry Kummer in 2018 countered: Who are those extinct animals? Mostly bugs. For the most accurate list of extinct and endangered species, see the IUCN Red List of extinctions. Wikipedia posts this in a more easily viewed form. Seldom mentioned in the alarmist articles is the big fact: most Animalia are bugs But the persistent claims that not only are humans driving this driving a species catastrophe but that humans themselves go extinct will not go away. 2015: Pope Francis to the UN: environmental degradation threatens ‘the very existence of the human species’ 2014: Esquire Mag. joins doomsday cult: ‘How We’re Fked As A Species’ – ‘Centuries from now, when the several remaining humans are huddled around a dwindling fire and pondering how each of them will kill the others and eat their still-warm flesh’ Overpopulation Guru Paul Ehrlich: ‘Climate Change’ Will Force Humans To ‘Eat Bodies of Dead’ Ehrlich predicted: Humans must soon begin contemplating “eat[ing] the bodies of your dead” after resources are depleted. Ehrlich claimed that scarcity of resources will get so bad that humans will need to drastically change our eating habits and agriculture. Instead, we will soon begin asking “is it perfectly okay to eat the bodies of your dead because we’re all so hungry?” He added that humanity is “moving in that direction with ridiculous speed.” But science does not support these human extinction/cannibalism claims. 2015: Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore mocks human extinction claim: ‘We are presently the most successful species on the planet’ – Greenpeace Co-Founder & Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore challenges specious species claims: ‘That is so 1970s. Paul Ehrlich is pathetic and has been crying wolf for decades. While he pontificated doom for starving millions in the 1970 from his Ivory Tower at Stanford.’ # This is not the first time we have warned. As early as 1864, “tipping points” about the “extinction of the species” were issued. “As early as 1864 George Perkins Marsh, sometimes said to be the father of American ecology, warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,”’ and that unless men changed their ways it would be reduced ‘to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the deprivation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’” – —MIT professor Leo Marx Round-up of the failures of Paul Ehrlich, the media’s go to 2019 species “expert.” Paul Ehrlich, one of the most discredited men in the history of science? In 1974, Paul Ehrlich told the U.S. Senate he wouldn’t bet a nickel U.S. still around in 1994 Ehrlich to U.S. Senate 1974: ‘If we have 20 years — which I wouldn’t put a nickel on — but if we have 20 years, we’re already 10 years too late in starting to do something about it.’ – ‘One of the big problems is how do you generate a feeling of urgency…’ ‘If bad weather continues in the Midwest this year, and if the monsoon should fail this year in India, as it might, then I think you’re going to see the age of scarcity and many of the changes I’m talking about coming on next winter.’ Paul Ehrlich’s Epic Fail: Why The ‘Population Bomb’ Never Exploded Flashback: ‘Accurate Tribute to Paul Ehrlich: ‘Mad…Kook…Lunatic…Disgraced…Worse than Hitler…fear-monger…parasite on Academic system’ Flashback 1980: Paul Ehrlich calls oil ‘a resource which we know damn well is going to be gone in 20 or 30 years’ (By year 2000 or 2010) – Ehrlich 1980: ‘Do we really want to threaten to blow up the world over a resource which we know damn well is going to be gone in 20 or 30 years anyway?’ – ‘Every country is now overpopulated.’ – ‘There is a finite pie. The more mice you have nibbling at it the smaller every mouses’ share.’ 1972 Article Unearthed: ‘Worse than Hitler’: ‘Population Bomb’ author Paul Ehrlich suggested adding a forced sterilization agent to ‘staple food’ and ‘water supply’ – Warned of ‘Unpredictable climatic effects’ — Called on the U.S. to ‘de-develop’ In 1974 Senate testimony Holdren proposed ‘limits both on population size and materials use per person’ Flashback 1974-John Holdren testifies before Congress abt need for “population limitation & redistribution of wealth” – John Holdren 1974: ‘I find myself firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp’ NYT in 2015 mocked Paul Ehrlich’s Overpopulation Fears: ‘Apocalyptic predictions fell as flat as ancient theories about shape of the Earth’ – NYT: ‘In the 1960s, fears of overpopulation sparked campaigns for population control. But whatever became of the population bomb?’ …’One thing that happened on the road to doom was that the world figured out how to feed itself despite its rising numbers. No small measure of thanks belonged to Norman E. Borlaug, an American plant scientist whose breeding of high-yielding, disease-resistant crops led to the agricultural savior known as the Green Revolution.’ — ‘Fred Pearce, a British writer who specializes in global population. His concern is not that the world has too many people. In fact, birthrates are now below long-term replacement levels, or nearly so, across much of Earth, not just in the industrialized West and Japan but also in India, China, much of Southeast Asia, Latin America — just about everywhere except Africa, although even there the continentwide rates are declining. “Girls that are never born cannot have babies,” Mr. Pearce wrote in a 2010 book, “The Coming Population Crash and Our Planet’s Surprising Future”. P2013: PAUL EHRLICH BOMBS AGAIN: ‘In the more than four decades since The Population Bomb was published, the number of people inhabiting the Earth has more than doubled, but the death and poverty rates have dropped, and life expectancy has increased. Not only are we feeding more people than ever before, we’re doing it with less land’ Paul Ehrlich admits it: ‘I am an alarmist. My colleagues are alarmists. We’re alarmed, and we’re frightened’ – Earlier this month, the biologist Paul Ehrlich used a similar defense after co-authoring a study that warned of a coming “annihilation” of vertebrates. “I am an alarmist,” Ehrlich told the Washington Post. “My colleagues are alarmists. We’re alarmed, and we’re frightened. And there’s no other way to put it.” How They Sold Paul Ehrlich’s ‘The Population Bomb’ – Threats of famine, dead children, bombs, nuclear war, & oblivion # ‘Blatant nonsense’: Media hyped walrus climate scare stories debunked – Claims recycled year-after-year – A Climate Depot Rebuttal Walrus Key Points: Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover – ‘The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science…this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.’ ‘The Pacific walrus remains abundant, numbering at least 200,000 by some accounts, double the number in the 1950s’ ‘Dating back to at least 1604, there have been reports of large walrus gatherings or haulouts.’ – ‘Walrus haulouts are not unusual and have long been recognized and islands have been set aside for such gatherings.’ Walruses are known to migrate away from ice in late summer & fall: “In the non-reproductive season (late summer and fall) walruses tend to migrate away from the ice and form massive aggregations of tens of thousands of individuals on rocky beaches or outcrops.” AP’s own reporting debunks unprecedented walrus claims:  The AP reported on 40,000 walruses in a haulout just 7 years ago in a single location. Walrus stampede deaths drop dramatically from 3000 in 2007 to 50 in 2014?: AP: 2007: ‘3,000 walruses die in stampedes tied to Climate’ Walrus stampede deaths benefit polar bears: ‘Stampeded remains of 100 walruses fed up to 185 polar bears’ Biodiversity threat won’t be tackled by alarmist biologist hype and dismantling capitalism MATT RIDLEY: BIODIVERSITY ALARMISM DOESN’T WORK – ‘Threat to biodiversity is not new, not necessarily accelerating, mostly not caused by economic growth’ – ‘The threat to biodiversity is not new, not necessarily accelerating, mostly not caused by economic growth or prosperity, nor by climate change, and won’t be reversed by retreating into organic self-sufficiency.’ ‘Much of the human destruction of biodiversity happened a long time ago.’ Time Magazine ‘Hero of the Environment’ Michael Shellenberger exposes wind/solar power: ‘Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet’ – Shellenberger: “I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have to spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural. Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost.” Bird Blenders: “As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins, and jays. What kills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines. In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with.” Is the Insect Apocalypse Really Upon Us? ‘Claims that insects will disappear within a century are absurd’ – The data on insect declines are too patchy, unrepresentative, and piecemeal to justify some of the more hyperbolic alarms. At the same time, what little information we have tends to point in the same worrying direction…The claim that insects will all be annihilated within the century is absurd. Almost everyone I spoke with says that it’s not even plausible, let alone probable. “Not going to happen,” says Elsa Youngsteadt from North Carolina State University. “They’re the most diverse group of organisms on the planet…The sheer diversity of insects makes them, as a group, resilient—but also impossible to fully comprehend. There are more species of ladybugs than mammals, of ants than birds, of weevils than fish. Where Are The Corpses? – By Willis Eschenbach –  Removing the idea of habitat reduction as a major extinction threat will allow us to focus on the real main modern extinction threat, that of invasive, predatory alien species, in particular humans. For example, it is not the cutting of the African forests that is the main danger to the species living in the forests — it is the bushmeat trade, and the poaching for furs and body parts, which are putting species at risk. Hunting, both by humans and by invasive species, may well yet drive a number of species to extinction. This is the real extinction threat of the 21st century, the threat that we should be working to counter. Scientists uncover 1,451 new species in the ocean in the past year – UK Daily Mail 2015: From a frilled shark to the frogfish, we’re finding four new sea creatures every day: Scientists uncover 1,451 new species in the ocean in the past year alone Scientists have discovered 1,451 new species in our oceans in the past year Creatures include beasts from the deep, microscopic shrimp and dolphins Marine explorers discovered ‘Keesingia gigas’ jellyfish off the Australian coast ‘Star-gazer’ shrimp also found in the seas off South Africa by a marine expert Despite the expansion of our knowledge however, scientists estimate we still only know about a tenth of the marine life on Earth. The World Register of Marine Species – which aims to become an inventory of all known ocean life – numbers 228,000 species, with new names being added every day. New Australian study: Marine algae species adapts to climate change, contrary to what was assumed until now One Million New Plankton Species Found: ‘A worldwide expedition of the oceans to find out about climate change reveals a million new species of plankton’ – ‘These planktonic organisms are the life support system of the planet.’ — ‘They are the base of the food chain … if there’s no plankton, there’s no fish in the oceans…And they take CO2 out of the atmosphere by taking it into the interior of the ocean where it can be stored for thousands of millions of years so they’re an essential buffer against climate change due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’   UN Earth Summit Rebuttal: ‘There is no scientific basis for claims that hundreds or even thousands of species are at risk’ – ‘Of 191 bird and mammal species recorded as having gone extinct since 1500, 95% were on islands…On continents, just six bird and three mammal species were driven to extinction…the greatest threats to species are the very policies and programs being advocated in Rio. Those policies would ban fossil fuels; greatly increase renewable energy use; reduce jobs and living standards in rich nations; and perpetuate poverty, disease, death and desperation in poor countries’ UN is the threat to biodiversity! ‘The greatest threats to species are the very policies and programs being advocated in Rio’ – UN Earth Summit ‘seeks to shift international focus to ‘biodiversity’ and supposed threats to plant and animal species as the new ‘greatest threat’ facing planet Earth. This rebranding is “by design,” according to conference organizers, who have been uncharacteristically candid in describing sustainable development and biodiversity as an “easier sell” than climate change’ Nature Conservancy chief scientist admits ‘data simply do not support idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse’ –demise of formerly abundant species can be inconsequential to ecosystem function’ – ‘Ecologists now know that disappearance of one species does not necessarily lead to extinction of any others, much less all others in the same ecosystem…A thorough review of the literature identified 240 studies of ecosystems following deforestation, mining, oil spills, & other types of pollution. The abundance of plant & animal species & other measures of ecosystem function recovered, at least partially, in 173 (72%) of these studies’ # Update May 21, 2019: Analysis: ‘Nothing but fiction’ – UN Species Extinction Report Spouts Unscientific Hype, Dubious Math – ‘Claims are nonsensical hype…wildly exaggerated numbers that can’t be corroborated’ Physicist Ralph B. Alexander: “The UN IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) claimed that more species are currently at risk of extinction than at any time in human history and that the extinction rate is accelerating. But these claims are nonsensical hype, based on wildly exaggerated numbers that can’t be corroborated… The IPBES report summary, which is all that has been released so far, states that “around 1 million of an estimated 8 million animal and plant species (75% of which are insects), are threatened with extinction.” Apart from the as-yet-unpublished report, there’s little indication of the source for these estimates, which are as mystifying as the classic magician’s rabbit produced from an empty hat… But while the IUCN presents these numbers matter-of-factly without fanfare, the much more political IPBES resorts to unashamed hype by extrapolating the statistics beyond the 98,512 species that the IUCN has actually investigated, and by assuming a total number of species far in excess of the IUCN’s estimated 1.7 million. Estimates of just how many species the Earth hosts vary considerably, from the IUCN number of 1.7 million all the way up to 1 trillion. The IPBES number of 8 million species appears to be plucked out of nowhere, as does the 1 million threatened with extinction, despite the IPBES report being the result of a “systematic review” of 15,000 scientific and government sources… Not only does the IPBES take unjustified liberties with the IUCN statistics, but its extinction rate projection bears no relationship whatsoever to actual extinction data. A known 680 vertebrate species have been driven to extinction since the 16th century, with 66 known insect extinctions recorded over the same period – or approximately 1.5 extinctions per year on average. The IPBES report summary states that the current rate of global species extinction is tens to hundreds of times higher than this and accelerating, but without explanation except for the known effect of habitat loss on animal species… it seems that the IPBES numbers are sheer make-believe. One million species on the brink of extinction is nothing but fiction, when the true number could be as low as 5,900. # Page 184: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change: “Climate Change Threatens Norway’s Moose,” blared the headline in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten on May 15, 2008. “The popular Norwegian moose now faces another threat: Global warming” because the animals are “threatened by higher temperatures in spring and early summer that can upset their food supplies.” Bernt-Erik Sæther of the Norwegian University explained, “We’re not in any doubt. The moose is extremely vulnerable to climate change.” And yet a 2007 Der Spiegel article had said Norwegian moose “is harming the climate…through its belching and farting,” calling it “more destructive to the environment than cars.” The Norwegian moose is threatened by climate change—and also causing climate change! This is settled science. It may be time to list the moose as an endangered species on account of its own “emissions.” # Marc Morano background: Publisher of CFACT’s Climate Depot My background is in political science, which happens to be an ideal background for examining the latest round of UN environmental claims. I have been following the UN species reports since 2010 when the UN first announced they were going to be elevating species to near the level of climate as a concern. See: 2010: Global Warming? Never heard of it! Hollywood backing Biodiversity/Species Shift! Earth is ‘at a tipping point’, warns actor Harrison Ford at UN Biodiversity Conference As a lifelong conservationist, I share concerns about the Earth’s biodiversity and particularly concerns about threats to species. I have advocated for a clean, healthy planet with a co-existence of humans and plants and animals. But, as an investigative journalist studying the United Nations for decades, there is only one conclusion to be made of this new report: The UN’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), is the latest UN appeal to give it more power, more scientific authority, more money, and more regulatory control. I am the author of the best-selling 2018 book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” reissued in 2019 with a bonus chapter on the Green New Deal. I have attended nearly every United Nations environmental summit since 2002, including the Earth Summits in Johannesburg South Africa and Rio in Brazil. I publicly debated the UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri at the 2006 UN climate summit in Nairobi Kenya. I have conducted interviews with UN IPCC scientists and documented how the UN twists and hypes and distorts science in order to push a political agenda. I have been a fully credentialed investigative journalist with both White House and Capitol Hill press badges, a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and I reported extensively on environmental and energy issues such as deforestation, wetlands, endangered species, pollution, and climate change.  In 2016, I wrote and starred in the theatrical film Climate Hustle, which debuted in over 400 theaters in the U.S. and Canada. During my investigative journalism career, I have reported on the heavy hand of the U.S. government conducted armed raids into private homes of animal breeders all in the name of protecting endangered species. It turns out, the government’s “good intentions” on species resulted in the animals’ deaths on numerous when the animals were seized and left to die in government care.   I have been passionate about environmental issues since I began my career in 1991 as a journalist. I produced a documentary on the myths surrounding the Amazon Rainforest in 2000, which dealt extensively claimed species extinctions and how such claims are used to instill fear for political lobbying.   I have done extensive investigating reporting on species extinction claims, including how hyped up species concerns are used to shut down American mining and private breeders. One of my stories was a report titled Desert Stormtroopers and how nearly 30 state, local and federal agencies descended onto the Molycorp mine in California’s Mojave desert to protect the threatened Desert Tortoise. Based on these endangered species claims, the mine’s operations were halted, employees were forced to undergo “tortoise sensitivity training” and the U.S. federal government felt compelled to use heavy-handed tactics. It turned out that the Desert Tortoise was not even considered an “endangered” species, but a “threatened” species. In my capacity as Communications Director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under Senator James Inhofe, I was speechwriter and hosted the award-winning U.S. Senate blog. I released the first-ever U.S.  Government “Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming Alarmism” in 2006. I also authored the 255-page Senate report of over 700 dissenting scientists on man-made global warming originally published in 2007 and updated in 2008, 2009. In 2010, the number of dissenting international scientists exceeded 1000, including many current and former UN scientists who turned against the organization.  I am now the publisher of the award-winning Climate Depot and work daily with scientists who examine the latest peer-reviewed studies and climate and environmental data as well as the feasibility of the alleged “solutions.” I have had extensive experience in Congressional hearings. I coordinated hearings and organized topics, selected witnesses and help run the EPW hearings as a senior staffer of the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, This is my third time testifying before the U.S. Congress. I participated in a 2013 debate at a Congressional field hearing on climate science in West Virginia and in February 2019, I testified at a Congressional Western Caucus hearing on the Green New Deal. # Oral Testimony: Marc Morano comments: UN’s Robert Watson regurgitates all the usual UN tripe in a May 6, 2019, UK Guardian commentary:  Morano: Watson claims of “the future of humanity depends on action now.” Watson also adds that our kids “will never forgive us” unless we give into UN central planning. The UN schemes are “our last best chance” to save the planet! according to Watson. He claims we can’t afford NOT to listen to the UN because — wait for it — Watson claims “the costs of doing nothing will be much higher.” Morano: And of course, what UN science bureaucrat could resist the following, “change of the magnitude required will mean a different life for everyone,” Watson wrote. Ah yes, a “different life for everyone” brought to you by the United Nations. Morano: I think we will pass on that offer.  It’s time for Congress to recognize the UN ongoing “science con” and not let the UN expand its reach into yet even more regulations and self-interested aggrandizement. Humanity and nature deserver better than the UN’s alleged scientific efforts and proposed “solutions.” Thank you. End Morano’s statement.  

All Eyes On The Scientist Set To Upend The ‘Climate Change’ Narrative – Under ‘All-Out Attack’ by Media – ‘Dr. Will Happer is one of the most important scientists in the U.S.’

Dr. Will Happer Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion By Norman Rogers William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States.  He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government.  His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive.  Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council. The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.”  The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer.  That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change.  The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer. Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization.  In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure.  A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.”  We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows. What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare.  If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse.  Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field.  The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world.  They won’t give up the glory without a fight. Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth.  But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry.  As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry.  The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers. Climate science has gone off the rails.  President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address.  He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money.  Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster.  If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster. Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype.  There was global cooling that preceded global warming.  There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others.  It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions.  Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested.  The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions. Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests.  Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests.  Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences.  We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code.  Scientists are not different.  They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work.  They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing.  But these things happen. Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype.  Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink.  Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing — for example, climate science.  Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion.  They are in no position to contradict groupthink.  They have families to feed.  The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money.  To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization. The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform — for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure.  There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype.  When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious.  The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics.  When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible. Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science.  But scientists are humans, not gods.  They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play.  We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another.  The fake predictions are never completely fake.  There is usually some real science buried in all the hype.  For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet.  The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored.  Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water.  Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses.  CO2 is greening deserts.  How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2? DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer.  But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria.  The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa.  DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace. Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science.  For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review.  Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality.  The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science. Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes.  The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money.  That should be an ethical violation.  Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances. There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories.  It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem.  Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending. Norman Rogers is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.

Climate Nuremberg: ‘It’s Time to Try Fossil-Fuel Executives for Crimes Against Humanity’ – ‘Already killed at least tens of thousands of people through climate-fueled disasters worldwide’

Climate Depot Response: Here we go again. See: Climate Depot’s Morano & other skeptics ‘sentenced to death’ for ‘Crimes against Humanity’ Flashback 2006: GRIST’S DAVID ROBERTS CALLED FOR NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS Bill Nye, ‘The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!’: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ (Exclusive Video) Flashback: Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?! Twenty climate scientists, including Top UN scientist Dr. Kevin Trenberth, call for RICO investigation of climate skeptics in letter to Obama Warmists declare: ‘Nuremberg-style trials must be held’ Read: Bonus chapter: Intimidating the ‘Deniers’ to Enforce the ‘Consensus’ – Climate ‘deniers’ threatened with being ‘thrown in jail’ 02.05.2019 By Kate Aronoff – A fellow at the Type Media Center and a contributing writer to the Intercept. Just one hundred fossil fuel producers — including privately held and state-owned companies — have been responsible for 71 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions released since 1988, emissions that have already killed at least tens of thousands of people through climate-fueled disasters worldwide… More immediately, a push to try fossil-fuel executives for crimes against humanity could channel some much-needed populist rage at the climate’s 1 percent, and render them persona non grata in respectable society — let alone Congress or the UN, where they today enjoy broad access. Making people like Exxon CEO Darren Woods or Shell CEO Ben van Beurden well known and widely reviled would put names and faces to a problem too often discussed in the abstract. The climate fight has clear villains. It’s long past time to name and shame them. Left unchecked, the death toll of climate change could easily creep up into the hundreds of millions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in turn unleashing chaos and suffering that’s simply impossible to project. An independent report commissioned by twenty governments in 2012 found that climate impacts are already causing an estimated four hundred thousand deaths per year. … That we need to instead strip fossil fuels from the global economy isn’t up for debate. Without the increasingly distant-seeming deployment of speculative, so-called negative emissions technologies, coal usage will have to decline by 97 percent, oil by 87 percent, and gas by 74 percent by 2050 for us to have a halfway decent shot at keeping warming below 1.5 degrees celsius. That’s what it will take to avert pervasive, catastrophic climate impacts that will destabilize the very foundations of society. (Keeping warming to a more dangerous 2.0 degrees celsius will require decarbonization that’s almost as abrupt.) … Technically speaking, what fossil-fuel companies do isn’t genocide. Low-lying islands and communities around the world are and will continue to be the worst hit by climate impacts. … Rather, the fossil industry’s behavior constitutes a Crime Against Humanity in the classical sense: “a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack,” including murder and extermination. Unlike genocide, the UN clarifies, in the case of crimes against humanity, it is not necessary to prove that there is an overall specific intent. It suffices for there to be a simple intent to commit any of the acts listed…The perpetrator must also act with knowledge of the attack against the civilian population and that his/her action is part of that attack. Fossil-fuel executives may not have intended to destroy the world as we know it. And climate change may not look like the kinds of attacks we’re used to. But they’ve known what their industry is doing to the planet for a long time, and the effects are likely to be still more brutal if the causes are allowed to continue. … After the war, though, the ensuing Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals wrote an important precedent into international law, establishing that “crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” At that point, there was no legal framework to understand violence on the scale of those that Hitler’s regime had just carried out, let alone to punish it. To remedy that the international community came together to create and implement one. On climate, the precedent set in Nuremberg offers other lessons as well. It’s hard to think of a problem more widely attributed to “abstract entities” than global warming, allegedly the product of some unquenchable, ubiquitous human thirst for new stuff. That old Pogo cartoon still holds sway in the popular imagination: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” … If the Nuremberg Trials were outside the box for international law at the time, trying fossil-fuel executives for crimes against humanity might well be in the stratosphere. For one, the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, so unless the UN Security Council were to grant a US court jurisdiction over the matter — which hardly seems likely — a case would have to happen in a country that is for anything to go before the ICC. Full article here:

Prominent Dutch Scientist Declares his dissent: ‘You can’t stop climate change by simply turning a CO2 button’ – ‘Doomsday scenario became a kind of religion’ JAS Foundation, Holland Professor Guus Berkhout is setting up a new international climate institute in the Netherlands.   Q: So, everything is fine you would think? Well, at first there was a constructive conversation indeed. But the problems arose when the climate movement started to exaggerate. Terrifying doom stories were spread and human CO2 was the only culprit. That also happened in a very aggressive way. Think of the apocalyptic films of Al Gore. One disaster after another would hit us. The general public was shocked by all these terrifying stories. ‘ As a counter-reaction, the climate movement insulted dissenters as ‘deniers’, a very bad framing that refers to the holocaust deniers. ‘ Q: Hasn’t there been criticism of this fallacy right from the start? Yes, a number of renowned scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, quickly put the brakes on by reassuring society with a clear disapproval. Their message was that the terrestrial climate system is incredibly complicated and that we do not yet have the knowledge to draw such extreme conclusions with such certainty. It’s really not five to twelve! Those scientists were fiercely blamed for that dissent. ’ Counter arguments are not tolerated Q: People didn’t hear a positive story anymore? Indeed, the doomsday scenario became a kind of religion. When the scientific criticism from outside the climate movement became broader and more extensive, and cost calculations also showed that implementing the extremely expensive climate measures could seriously disrupt society economically, things really went wrong. As a counter-reaction, the climate movement called dissenters ‘deniers’, a very bad framing that refers to the holocaust deniers. ‘ Q: But true scientists will not be stopped, will they? Unfortunately, it did at first. Their critical articles were no longer welcome and, even worse, their research was excluded from funding. For these dissidents a cordon sanitaire was laid by official bodies and mainstream media. The only sound that the general public has heard in recent decades was: ‘human CO2 heats up the Earth! ’. Q: You hear it all around, do you? Sure, that message was and is being rammed into the audience. The discussion is no longer about climate change, but about CO2 reduction. A sad narrowing down of a very complex issue. Fortunately, we now see a tipping point on the horizon. Because science can measure better and better, we find out that the predictions of climate models do not match measurements. That is scientifically unacceptable. And we also see that the costs are definitely going to pass bearing. Everything suggests that costs will exceed many hundreds of billions in The Netherlands alone. And hardworking citizens are now rightly asking themselves: ‘But what are the benefits of this billion-dollar circus? Q: Why does one CO2 camp find more support in left-wing politics and another more support in right-wing politics? Left-wing politics has always been committed to a better environment. But in recent years, the environmental movement has been step by step exploited by the climate movement. In this way, climate and environment were presented as one and the same theme and climate change also became a favourite with the Left. The mixing of both movements now causes a lot of confusion. Many people who say they are very concerned about climate change actually mean that they are very concerned about the natural environment, such as air pollution. ’ I regularly give lectures on climate and environment and before the beginning there are always people coming to me with vicious remarks such as: “So, you are the one who wants to screw-up our Earth”. The cutting down of forests and the subsequent production, transport and incineration of wood pellets are issues that go against everything the environmental movement stands for. These three are the classic concerns of the environmental movement and are more topical than ever in this day and age! But unfortunately, these noble concerns have now been completely overshadowed by the monomaniacal CO2measures. The environmental movement is now beginning to realise that they made a cardinal mistake. Burning bio-mass is even worse than burning coal The first clear controversy now plays and is about the role of biomass. The cutting-down of forests and the subsequent production, transport and incineration of wood pellets are issues that go against everything the environmental movement stands for. There are even business models on the drawing board that want to cut down forests for pellets and then place solar panels on the vacant bare ground. This way a double business model is created.……… . How have environmental organisations been able to get this far from their mission? ’ Q: Where do you stand in all this? I am a geophysicist and in my research I make the history of the Earth’s climate visible, which is called ‘geo-imaging’. After all, to understand the present you need to know the past. The geological archive contains rich climate information and tells us the primeval story of climate change: it is of all times. The archive shows very nicely that hot and cold periods have alternated regularly. This happened in fits and starts, two steps forward and then one step backward. For an illustration, we really do not have to go back to the great ice ages. In the Middle Ages, around 800, we had the Middle-age Warm Period. Then there was plenty of agriculture in Greenland! And in the Dutch golden age, around 1600, we were in the middle of the Little Ice Age. The Dutch great painters show beautiful scenes from that cold period. From the end of that small ice age, around 1850, we are in a warming up period, of course again with fits and starts. Nothing special, I say. These are the natural movements in the climate system. Soon it will go down again. ’  Q: We are getting harsh winters again? It’s not about whether, but about when. As a geophysicist, I warn that it is highly unlikely that the natural movements would have stopped abruptly after 1850. And that since then only mankind would be responsible for this warming. However, this extreme message is exactly what the IPCC has made clear with great emphasis in its latest report SR 1.5. According to the report, nature’s contribution is marginal and will remain marginal in the future. The IPCC derives all these certainties purely from its theoretical model! ‘ There are still many essential questions that need to be answered. For example, why is the amount of ice at the South Pole increasing?’ Q: Is a misleading image created? Yes, because reality tells IPCC people to be less arrogant. You can’t stop climate change by simply turning a CO2 button. Until today nobody knows exactly what the complex interactions are between the radiation of the sun, the dynamic cloud cover, the inhomogeneous Earth surface, the energy-rich gulf stream and the water-vapour rich atmosphere. Note that IPCC is referring to the greatest details in the atmosphere, but they should not forget that the heat capacity of oceans is a factor 1000 higher than that of the atmosphere! The amount of heat that the gulf stream in the oceans drag from the equator to the poles is gigantic compared to the modest amount of heat in the atmosphere. With this in mind, can we ask the question whether the ice cap at the North Pole melts now due to the higher temperature in the atmosphere or due to the influence of the warm Gulf Stream? And why is the amount of ice at the South Pole increasing? There are still many essential questions that need to be answered. The great certainties that the IPCC wants us to believe, with a certainty of even > 95%, cannot be maintained. Bertrand Russell once said: ‘The fools are self-confident and the wise are filled with doubt. ’ ‘I like to say it in my own way: ‘Through criticism of the content, science is where it is now and I am the scientist I have become.’ In the last 20 years the CO2 increase has thundered on, but the observed temperature does not show any increase anymore. That is an important indication that there must be much more going on than CO2warming.  Q: Which group do you belong to?  (Laughing) In short, my message is as follows (Berkhout counts). One:  Since the small ice age, the LIA, the Earth has been warming up again with fits and starts, nothing new in the Earth’s climate history. In the past 150 years, we can distinguish six different climate periods. Secondly: The general public is rightly asking the climate movement for hard evidence that after the small ice age Mother Nature suddenly has no effect whatsoever on the Earth’s climate. They also ask the climate movement what according their wisdom the correct temperature of the Earth should be? And, very important, number three: CO2 certainly has a warming effect, but how much exactly is still very uncertain. This is also evident from the enormous margin in the warming factor that the IPCC itself maintains: 1.5-4.5 degrees. That’s 300%! Four: In the past century the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has steadily increased, but in none of the natural disasters do we see that an increase has taken place. On the contrary, we are even at a time period we often observe a downward trend. Five: Within the last 20 years the CO2 increase has thundered on, but the observed temperature does not show any increase anymore. This is an important indication that much more is happening than CO2 warming. And then last but not least, six: The Dutch climate plans cost many hundreds of billions. We will soon come up with the real figures, but the benefits of all these Dutch plans for the planet are nil, about 0.0003 degrees, and for the Dutch citizen they are very negative. The latter also applies to the business climate in our country. So why are we going to carry out these plans anyway? And don’t forget that CO2 is also an indispensable building block for all life on Earth. My advice to administrators is therefore: You should not put billions into CO2 reduction, but billions into a much better protection of the natural environment: ‘good stewardship’. I hope to come back to that later in this interview. ’ Q: But if we reduce CO2, don’t we also reduce air pollution?  That is certainly true, but if we want to combat a rat infestation, we will not start catching mice, will we? Reducing CO2 is an extremely difficult and expensive task, while the benefits are very uncertain. Air pollution – think of soot particles, fine dust, SOx and NOx compounds, etc. – is not only much more targeted to combat, it also guarantees high benefits for man and nature.’ Q: Doesn’t science start with measurements? The difference between science and religion is that scientific statements must always be verifiable with observations. Theoretical models should therefore always be validated by critically comparing model results with real measurements. If that has not happened, you may not apply theoretical models. The more complex the issue, the more important it is to make measurements. Information in the measurements shows the way how further develop these models. The history of science shows time and again that major theoretical breakthroughs were inspired by breakthroughs in measuring instrumentation. The climate system is so complex that it is pre-eminently in climate science that measurements must show the way. But so far, theoretical models have played far too big a role in climate research. The course has to change now. Large-scale funding should be provided for scientific projects to drastically accelerate the development of new measuring instruments and measurement facilities. How is it possible that IPCC never felt the need to invest in experimental facilities to thoroughly validate the warming theory of CO2 with measurements? ‘ By constantly telling that 97% of scientists confirm the story of the climate movement, the general public thinks it is the truth. The opposite is true. Q: These poorly validated computer models describe a dreamworld. Yet, these climate models have an enormous impact, is’t that right? The power of the climate movement is the simple message: ‘Human CO2 is the cause of warming; warming is causing a catastrophe; if we turn the CO2 button everything will be fine again’. I said it before, that message is being hammered into the public. Not knowledge but fear is used as an emotional driver. What they have also smartly done is to regularly use climate change as a scapegoat. For example, the cause of much misery in Africa is attributed to climate change, even though the problems are of an ethnic, religious and political nature. But unfortunately that is not all. By constantly telling that 97% of scientists confirm the story of the climate movement, the general public thinks it is the truth. However, the opposite is true. This consensus strategy is not new. For example, in the start to the financial crisis in 2007, everyone told everyone that the economy could grow indefinitely if everyone was making debts. If you didn’t agree with that message, you would be called a fool. Of course, nobody wanted to be judged as such. Even if you didn’t understand anything about the theory of ‘growth by making debts’. They just parroted each other. Even the solid Dutch Rabobank, at that time the only bank in the world with a triple A rating, bought debt securities. At the time, the consensus was almost complete: if you want to grow, you have to get into debt! But we know how it ended. Now we are in the same situation with the earth’s climate. When I ask critical questions, it turns out that very few people know anything about the climate system. Everyone parrots everyone. Conclusion is that history shows time and again: ‘Beware of people who use consensus as a truth argument’. The same also applies to activists who put small children forward. Q: How do we move forward? The Netherlands would like to be an example country, wouldn’t it? First of all, be positive! Stop doom thinking and give way to the many opportunities that climate change also offers the world. And during realization, considering this extremely complex issue, you don’t focus on just one solution. With all the great uncertainties until today, we just cannot afford this. National governments never must take the risk of following the CO2 scenario only, especially since it involves such extremely high costs. So stop all these urgent CO2 reduction measures! My advice is that countries base their climate policy on three scenarios: Scenario 1: Climate adaptation If Mother Nature alone is responsible for climate change, mankind has only one thing to do: adapt to change.  Life on Earth has always been confronted with changes in the natural system. Darwin’s theory of evolution shows that inventive adaptation is the best answer and has also led to ever-higher forms of life. This applies not only to plants and animals, but also to humans. Wanting to stop natural change is not only arrogant and naive, it is also negatively charged and it sets the clock back. Adaptation challenges give positive energy and stimulate innovation. The Netherlands is champion in adaptation. Through the centuries we have fought against the water. And the Netherlands is also a global leader in adapting crops to new natural conditions. ‘ Wanting to be the best boy in the class by closing the relatively clean power plants in The Netherlands is downright stupidity. If politics does not stop this policy, it is the citizens’ turn to take action! ’ Scenario 2: CO2 reduction If only human CO2 were responsible for terrestrial climate change, then humans would have to implement sensible CO2 reduction measures. The top priority in this scenario is to ban wood burning and close the most polluting coal-fired power plants in the world. Coal-fired power plants are still being built all over the world, particularly in developing countries. Starting to close the relatively clean power stations in The Netherlands is downright stupidity. It costs the Dutch citizen an extremely large amount of money and it is of no benefit to the climate. Scenario 3: decomposition If we are dealing with a complex mixture of natural forces and human influences, then we must first determine which part is caused by Mother Nature and which part is caused by humanity (decomposition). However, today we do not yet have this knowledge at all. So, in this scenario we must acquire this knowledge with high priority. If it turns out that both causes have a comparable influence, it should lead to a mixed adaptation-reduction policy. Looking at everything we know today, the Netherlands should not become a leading country in CO2reduction. That has no measurable influence (0.0003 degrees). Instead, it should invest in both climate adaptation and good stewardship. ’ Political and commercial interests are becoming an increasingly important part of scientific research. Today, many scientists have lost their independent position in society. Q: And what role do you expect science to play in this? The greatest value of a scientist is his or her independent position in society. During my 40-year career as a professor I have seen that young scientists became more and more financially dependent on government and industry. Political and commercial interests have become an increasingly important part of their research. Many scientists have thus lost their independence. For this reason, I could not acquire young professors in my critical climate team. Only pensioners were and are still available. Only they can afford to think different from the main stream. That is extremely worrying. Are there still independent scientists to be found today? ’ Q: it seems nobody cares about? The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) is the guardian of integer scientific practices in our country. Particularly this organization should know that history of science tells us time and again that scientific progress never came about through consensus, but through stubborn scientists who dared to question existing concepts. It is in the interests of both science and humanity that these very dissidential thinkers are not silenced, as is currently being done by the IPCC, public media and commercial lobby clubs. Academies of Sciences, we want to know what the real truth is, don’t we? Moreoever, if politics misuses scientific results – with major consequences for society – then science should sound the alarm bell, should it not? Doubt is the basis of all scientific progress. Scientists who have no doubt and are convinced that they are right, do not ask questions but look for a row. That is why we do not make any progress in the climate debate. ’ Q: Despite everything, are you still optimistic for the future? Yes, but then we have to start all over again. Far away from the political UN with its nonsensical, polluting and costly climate conferences. These conferences are nothing more than a travelling CO2 circus with bureaucratic climate clowns talking about everything except the climate system. They forget in their ignorance that politicians are also bound by the universal laws of nature. And UN’s IPCC has completely screwed it up. It has degenerated into a political clique, full of manipulation and certainly not looking for the truth. That can never be put right again. The role of the IPCC can be seen as a dark period in the history of climate science. Stop it now! ’ In connection with this, you probably may know the beautiful musical Jesus Christ Superstar, in which after the death of Jesus his followers sadly wonder: ‘Could we start again, please?’ A touching moment in the musical. That is also how I see it in climate research. We need to start all over again, with a whole new approach in a whole new organisation. In this new organisation, we will be organising climate research in a much broader way. No more exclusive shows of mathematical model makers. They are far too one-sided for solving the comprehensive climate problem. The IPCC has therefore made little progress in recent decades. Hardly any new insights have been added. To put that behind us, we need scientists from many more fields of science. ’ We just founded the Climate Intelligence Foundation Q: What are your ideas about involving scientific areas? Think especially of astronomers who have knowledge about the influences of the universe on planet Earth, especially the solar activity, the cosmic radiation and the gravitational forces. Think also of geologists who, together with geophysicists, map the properties of the deeper earth layers and who can reconstruct the climate history of the Earth from them. And also think of archaeologists who can derive climate information about the past thousands of years from the remains of human activities in the shallow surface layers. And certainly also think of oceanographers who can translate the physical and biological properties of oceans into heat flows. Bringing together solutions from many fields of science with totally different data sources together may provide an accurate picture of the Earth’s climate. We call that ‘consilience‘. That is what I call true climate research.

U.S. Media Bans Scientific Dissent – Claim Wildfires, Floods, Droughts, Hurricanes Are Human-Controlled By Kenneth Richard on 7. January 2019 NBC News’ Chuck Todd recently asserted that we humans can control the climate and the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events (hurricanes, floods, droughts) and disasters (wildfires) with our CO2 emissions. He has declared the science is “settled” on this point and therefore no “denier” is allowed on his Meet the Press program. But Todd and the members of his panel have recited claims that are contravened by observational evidence and scientific publications. Image Source: The Western Journal via Youtube  On 30 December, 2018, the United States news media (NBC) put their political advocacy on full display in a Meet the Press program dedicated to tackling the issue of climate change in the U.S. The episode’s focus was on how to persuade Americans that immediate action to eliminate CO2 emissions was required to prevent catastrophic hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, sea level rise…from wreaking havoc across the U.S. landscape.  The hour-long program was entitled “How do we explain the urgency of climate change?” . Those who might offer dissenting information or challenges to the panelists’ viewpoints were not in attendance.  Only those who agreed with the host, Chuck Todd, were permitted.  This was clearly stated at the outset. ————————————————————————————————————————- Chuck Todd (NBC News): “We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period. We’re not going to give time to deniers. The science is settled even if political opinion is not.” ————————————————————————————————————————— NBC News report on climate change (a narration accompanied by footage of wildfires, floods, desperate Americans…) • “Climate-related disasters…from wildfires…to more intense storms…extreme rain events and floods are already a serious threat…and getting worse.” • (Man on the street:) “I saw the water mark in my basement.  It was up to my nose.” • “Glaciers are disappearing.  And Arctic ice melt is producing rising sea levels and re-writing global weather patterns.  All 5 of the warmest years on record in the Arctic have come since 2014 [NOAA].” • “And these rising temperatures have already cost the U.S. economy.” • (Iowa farmer:) “We’re not talking about whether you and I eat tonight. We’re talking about the survival of [the] human species over the long term.” • “This year a series of climate reports… issued dire warnings of economic and human catastrophe if there is not immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the federal response has been political paralysis…and denial.” [A video of an odd 2015 Senate floor episode in which a snowball was brought into the congressional building from the outside (apparently to demonstrate it was cold outside during winter).  This footage was seemingly illustrative of what “political paralysis…and denial” look like.] ———————————————————————————————————————— Chuck Todd (NBC News): • “Just look at this year alone, the cost of three disasters. There’s Hurricane Michael, $25 billion; insurance claims for the California fires were up to $9 billion; $50 billion for Hurricane Florence.” • “Few states have been hit harder by climate change than California.” [Video images of fires and people talking about the fires’ devastation appear, indicating that wildfires and climate change are viewed by NBC News as one in the same.] ————————————————————————————————————————- Dr. Kate Marvel (NASA): “We’re talking about something that affects the planet that we live on.  We’re talking about global warming, but we’re also talking changes to rainfall patterns, changes to extreme events like heat waves and floods and droughts and hurricanes.” “Warm air holds more water vapor. So even if you live in the Midwest you’re going to see increased downpours.  The rain is really going to dump on you.” “The thing that I find sort of perversely comforting is the fact that we know exactly what’s causing this. Can you imagine if this was just a natural cycle that we didn’t have any control over? We know exactly what’s causing this. It’s us. It’s greenhouse gas emissions that we are putting in the atmosphere. And as a scientist, I can tell you: let’s not do that anymore.” ————————————————————————————————————————— Anne Thompson (NBC News Environmental Journalist): “I always liken climate change to cancer. […] Take a look at Glacier National Park out in Montana. In 1850, when the Industrial Revolution started and we started burning coal and sending greenhouse gases in the air, there were 150 glaciers in that national park. Today, there are 26, and they’re in danger of losing those 26. They’re really threatened. The reason why we’re seeing more people believe in it today is because we’re now starting to see climate change in real time in the United States.” ————————————————————————————————————————– What does the (banned) scientific evidence say? 1. Most of the U.S. has been cooling overall since the 1930s 2. Climate models, media wrong on the emissions-extreme weather link 3. No evidence that humans have unleashed climate “tipping points” 4. Extreme weather events have not increased 5. U.S. (and global) hurricane frequency, intensity have decreased 6. U.S. (and global) flooding events have decreased 7. U.S. (and global) drought events have decreased 8. U.S. (and global) wildfire frequency have decreased 9. Financial losses/deaths from extreme weather have decreased 10. 90% of the Holocene had more retreated/absent glaciers than today 11. Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling and gaining mass this century 12. Since 1958, Greenland/Antarctica melt contribution to sea levels is just 1.5 cm 13. More global land area above sea level today than in the 1980s 14. 89% of the globe’s small islands have stable or growing shorelines 15. Long-term (80+ years) global sea level rise acceleration not significant ————————————————————————————————————————– Listed below are 55 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in journals by real scientists supporting these 15 statements.  They are but a small sample.  Hundreds of other affirming scientific papers have not been included.  After all, over 1,500 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published since 2016 that support a skeptical position on climate alarm. The U.S. news media do not wish to consider scientific evidence that contradicts their agenda-driven narrative. So, to further their aims, they ban information that might contradict the supposition that the science is “settled” and disagreement only comes from ill-informed “deniers”. Some might call this deliberate attempt to squelch contravening evidence by another name. Image Source: Encyclopedia Britannica ————————————————————————————————————————– 1. Most of the U.S. has been cooling overall since the 1930s Alter et al., 2017     “From 1910- 1949 (pre-agricultural development, pre-DEV) to 1970-2009 (full agricultural development, full-DEV), the central United States experienced large-scale increases in rainfall of up to 35% and decreases in surface air temperature of up to 1°C during the boreal summer months of July and August … which conflicts with expectations from climate change projections for the end of the 21st century (i.e., warming and decreasing rainfall) (Melillo et al., 2014). … As part of this expansive agricultural development, the Corn Belt of the central United States – one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world (Guanter et al., 2014; Mueller et al., 2016) – experienced major increases in both corn and soybean production. For example, from 1950 to 2010, the amount of corn harvested annually in the Corn Belt increased by 400%, from 2 billion to 10 billion bushels (NASS, 2016).” Image Source: Alter et al., 2017 Lansner and Pepke Pedersen, 2018     “In locations best sheltered and protected against ocean air influence, the vast majority of thermometers worldwide trends show temperatures in recent decades rather similar to the 1920–1950 period. This indicates that the present-day atmosphere and heat balance over the Earth cannot warm areas – typically valleys – worldwide in good shelter from ocean trends notably more than the atmosphere could in the 1920–1950 period. … [T]he lack of warming in the OAS temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.” Image Source: Lansner and Pepke Pedersen, 2018 Partridge et al., 2018     “We present a novel approach to characterize the spatiotemporal evolution of regional cooling across the eastern U.S. (commonly called the U.S. warming hole), by defining a spatially explicit boundary around the region of most persistent cooling. The warming hole emerges after a regime shift in 1958 where annual maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures decreased by 0.46°C and 0.83°C respectively. … [T]he seasonal modes also vary in causation. Winter temperatures in the warming hole are significantly correlated with the Meridional Circulation Index (MCI), North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). … We select only stations in the contiguous U.S. that have an 80% complete record from 1901-2015, resulting in 1407 temperature stations.” Image Source: Partridge et al., 2018 Eck, 2018    “[A] majority (12/14) of the regions within the SAM [Southern Appalachian Mountains] have experienced a long-term decline in mean winter temperatures since 1910.  Even after removing the highly anomalous 2009-2010 winter season, which was more than two standard deviations away from the long-term mean, the cooling of mean winter temperatures is still evident. … Higher winter temperatures dominated the early 20th century in the SAM [Southern Appalachian Mountains] with nine of the ten warmest winter seasons on record in the region having occurred before 1960. The 1931-1932 winter season, the warmest on record, averaged 8.0°C for DJF [December-February], nearly 4.7°C higher than the 1987-2017 normal mean winter temperature of 3.3°C.” Image Source: Eck, 2018 Peterson et al., 2013     “For the conterminous United States, the highest number of heat waves occurred in the 1930s, with the fewest in the 1960s. The 2001–10 decade was the second highest but well below the 1930s. Regionally, the western regions (including Alaska) had their highest number of heat waves in the 2000s, while the 1930s were dominant in the rest of the country.” Image Source: (Peterson et al., 2013) 2. Climate models, uncritical media get it wrong on the climate change-extreme weather link D’Aleo and Khandekar, 2016       “In recent years, media and scientific journals have given increasing attention to worldwide extreme weather (EW) events and their possible relation to climate change and to specifically model proposed warming of the earth’s climate. This warming, which has been linked to human CO2 emissions, has been referred to by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). A brief overview of the ongoing debate is presented, synthesizing worldwide EW events of last decades and analyzing the possible linkage between EW and AGW. Data show that the postulated AGW/EW [extreme weather/anthropogenic global warming] link is a perception rather than reality, the perception being fostered by increased and uncritical media attention to recent EW [extreme weather] events.” Bellprat and Doblas-Reyes, 2016       “Attribution of extreme weather and climate events overestimated by unreliable climate simulations … Event attribution aims to estimate the role of an external driver after the occurrence of an extreme weather and climate event by comparing the probability that the event occurs in two counterfactual worlds. These probabilities are typically computed using ensembles of climate simulations whose simulated probabilities are known to be imperfect. The implications of using imperfect models in this context are largely unknown, limited by the number of observed extreme events in the past to conduct a robust evaluation. Using an idealized framework, this model limitation is studied by generating large number of simulations with variable reliability in simulated probability. The framework illustrates that unreliable climate simulations are prone to overestimate the attributable risk to climate change. Climate model ensembles tend to be overconfident in their representation of the climate variability which leads to systematic increase in the attributable risk to an extreme event.” Laliberté et al., 2015     “Global warming is expected to intensify the hydrological cycle, but it might also make the atmosphere less energetic. Laliberté et al. modeled the atmosphere as a classical heat engine in order to evaluate how much energy it contains and how much work it can do (see the Perspective by Pauluis). They then used a global climate model to project how that might change as climate warms. Although the hydrological cycle may increase in intensity, it does so at the expense of its ability to do work, such as powering large-scale atmospheric circulation or fueling more very intense storms. … [S]tudies over a wide range of climates suggest that global atmospheric motions are reduced in extremely warm climates.”  3. No supporting evidence that humans have unleashed “tipping points“in Earth’s climate Gaucherel and Moron, 2016      “‘Tipping points’ (TPs) are thresholds of potentially disproportionate changes in the Earth’s climate system associated with future global warming and are considered today as a ‘hot’ topic in environmental sciences. In this study, TP interactions are analysed from an integrated and conceptual point of view using two qualitative Boolean models built on graph grammars. They allow an accurate study of the node TP interactions previously identified by expert elicitation and take into account a range of various large-scale climate processes potentially able to trigger, alone or jointly, instability in the global climate. Our findings show that, contrary to commonly held beliefs, far from causing runaway changes in the Earth’s climate, such as self-acceleration due to additive positive feedbacks, successive perturbations might actually lead to its stabilization.” Boos and Sterelvmo, 2016     “Theoretical models have been used to argue that seasonal mean monsoons will shift abruptly and discontinuously from wet to dry stable states as their radiative forcings pass a critical threshold, sometimes referred to as a ‘tipping point.’ Further support for a strongly nonlinear response of monsoons to radiative forcings is found in the seasonal onset of the South Asian summer monsoon, which is abrupt compared with the annual cycle of insolation. Here it is shown thatthe seasonal mean strength of monsoons instead exhibits a nearly linear dependence on a wide range of radiative forcings. … Thus, neither a physically correct theoretical model nor a comprehensive climate model support the idea that seasonal mean monsoons will undergo abrupt, nonlinear shifts in response to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, aerosol emissions, or land surface albedo.” 4. Extreme weather events have not increased van der Wiel et al., 2016       “[T]he observed record and historical model experiments were used to investigate changes in the recent past. In part because of large intrinsic variability, no evidence was found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record” van Wijngaarden and Syed, 2016       “Changes in annual precipitation over the Earth’s land mass excluding Antarctica from the 18th century to 2013 …The trends for precipitation change together with their 95% confidence intervals were found for various periods of time. Most trends exhibited no clear precipitation change. The global changes in precipitation over the Earth’s land mass excluding Antarctica relative to 1961-90 were estimated to be: -1.2. ±. 1.7, 2.6. ±. 2.5 and -5.4. ±. 8.1% per century for the periods 1850-2000, 1900-2000 and 1950-2000, respectively.  A change of 1% per century corresponds to a precipitation change of 0.09. mm/year. … Stations experiencing low, moderate and heavy annual precipitation did not show very different precipitation trends. This indicates deserts/jungles are neither expanding nor shrinking due to changes in precipitation patterns. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that some caution is warranted about claiming that large changes to global precipitation have occurred during the last 150 years.” Shi et al., 2016       “Patterns and trends of high-impact weather in China during 1959–2014 … The spatial and temporal characteristics of the frequencies of four types of high-impact weather (HIW), i.e. snowfall, thunderstorms, fog and hailstorms, were analysed in China during 1959–2014. Results indicate a significant decrease in the number of snowfall days, thunderstorm days and thunderstorm spells in all six regions of China …  [F]og and hailstorm spells decreased at rates of 0.06–0.17 and 0.001–0.043 times per decade respectively in most regions of China.” Pausata et al., 2016       “Following the devastating droughts that ravaged the Sahel in the 1970–1980s, many efforts have been directed at investigating climate variability in Northern Africa, focusing on vegetation–climate feedbacks and the dynamics of the West African Monsoon (WAM) system (Charney et al., 1975 and Giannini et al., 2003). However, the past millennia have witnessed much larger precipitation changes than those seen in recent decades.” Dezileau et al., 2016       “Storms and tsunamis, which may seriously endanger human society, are amongst the most devastating marine catastrophes that can occur in coastal areas. Based on radiocarbon dating, these extreme events occurred around 5250, 4000, 3600, 3010, 2300, 1350, 650, and 80 years cal BP. No comparable events have been observed during the 20th and 21st centuries. The results indicate little likelihood of a tsunami origin for these coarse-grained layers, although historical tsunami events are recorded in this region. These periods of surge events seem to coincide with the coldest periods in Europe during the late Holocene, suggesting a control by a climatic mechanism for periods of increased storm activity.” Tozer et al., 2016       “Paleoclimate research indicates that the Australian instrumental climate record ( ∼ 100 years) does not cover the full range of hydroclimatic variability that is possible. To better understand the implications of this on catchment-scale water resources management, a 1013-year (1000– 2012 common era (CE)) annual rainfall reconstruction was produced for the Williams River catchment in coastal eastern Australia. … The reconstruction shows that significantly longer and more frequent wet and dry periods were experienced in the preinstrumental [1000-1900 CE] compared to the instrumental period [1900–2012]. This suggests that existing drought and flood risk assessments underestimate the true risks due to the reliance on data and statistics obtained from only the instrumental record.” Guo et al., 2016       “The other two-thirds area, where 60% of the U.S. tornadoes were reported (but the frequency of occurrence of tornadoes is less), however, showed a decreasing or a near-zero trend in tornado temporal variability. Furthermore, unlike the temporal variability alone, the combined spatial-temporal variability of U.S. tornado occurrence has remained nearly constant since 1950.” 5. U.S. (and global) hurricane frequency, intensity have decreased Truchelut and Staeling, 2018     “The extremely active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season concluded an extended period of quiescent continental United States tropical cyclone landfall activity that began in 2006, commonly referred to as the landfall drought. We introduce an extended climatology of U.S. tropical cyclone activity based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and use this data set to investigate variability and trends in landfall activity. The [hurricane landfall] drought years between 2006 and 2016 recorded an average value of total annual ACE [accumulated cyclone energy] over the U.S. that was less than 60% of the 1900–2017 average. Scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950, with the percentage of total Atlantic ACE expended over the continental U.S. at a series minimum during the recent drought period.” Chang et al., 2016      “Extratropical cyclones cause much of the high impact weather over the mid-latitudes. With increasing greenhouse gases, enhanced high-latitude warming will lead to weaker cyclone activity. Here we show that between 1979 and 2014, the number of strong cyclones in Northern Hemisphere in summer has decreased at a rate of 4% per decade, with even larger decrease found near northeastern North America.” Klotzbach et al., 2018     “Continental United States (CONUS) hurricane-related inflation-adjusted damage has increased significantly since 1900. However, since 1900 neither observed CONUS [Continental United States] landfalling hurricane frequency nor intensity show significant trends, including the devastating 2017 season.” Image Source: Klotzbach et al., 2018 Zhang et al., 2018       “Over the 1997–2014 period, the mean frequency of western North Pacific (WNP) tropical cyclones (TCs) was markedly lower (~18%) than the period 1980–1996. Here we show that these changes were driven by an intensification of the vertical wind shear in the southeastern/eastern WNP tied to the changes in the Walker circulation, which arose primarily in response to the enhanced sea surface temperature (SST) warming in the North Atlantic, while the SST anomalies associated with the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the tropical Pacific and the anthropogenic forcing play only secondary roles.” Zhao et al., 2018     “A vigorous debate has currently focused on the relationship between increasing TC [tropical cyclone] activity and increasing SST [sea surface temperatures] (Knutson et al. 2010). … [O]ver the WNP [Western North Pacific] basin,a significant decrease of TCF [tropical cyclone frequency] has been observed since 1998 (Liu and Chan 2013; Lin and Chan 2015; Zhao and Wang 2016). Global TCF [tropical cyclone frequency] has showed a similar reduction since the late 1990s (Maue 2011). Change of TCF over the past few decades does not appear to be consistent with changes in local SST. Observational analyses further pointed out that there is no significant correlation between the TCF [tropical cyclone frequency] and local SST [sea surface temperatures] over the WNP  [Western North Pacific] basin (Chan 2006; Yeh et al. 2010).” Image Source: Zhao et al., 2018 Hu et al., 2018          “Tropical cyclone (TC) genesis frequency in the western North Pacific (WNP) during 1960–2014 shows a step-by-step decrease on interdecadal timescale, in accordance to the phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO).” Image Source: Hu et al., 2018 Yoshida et al., 2017         “Projected future changes in global tropical cyclone (TC) activity are assessed using 5,000 year scale ensemble simulations for both current and 4 K surface warming climates with a 60 km global atmospheric model. The global number of TCs [tropical cyclones] decreases by 33% in the future projection. … The global number of category 4 and 5 TCs [tropical cyclones] significantly decreases, contrary to the increase seen in several previous studies.” 6. U.S. (and global) flooding events have decreased Mangini et al., 2018     “The main objective of this paper is to detect the evidence of statistically significant flood trends across Europe using a high spatial resolution dataset. … Anticipated changes in flood frequency and magnitude due to enhanced greenhouse forcing are not generally evident at this time over large portions of the United States for several different measures of flood flows. … Thus, similarly to the main findings of Archfield et al. (2016) for the US, the picture of flood change in Europe is strongly heterogeneous and no general statements about uniform trends across the entire continent can be made.” Aryal et al., 2018     “TCs [tropical cyclones] contribute to ∼20–30% of AMs and POTs over Florida and coastal areas of the eastern United States, and the contribution decreases as we move inland. … The record length ranges from 50 to 153 years and a large number of 121 stations have discharge measurements from 1950 onwards. … We do not detect statistically significant trends in the magnitude or frequency of TC [tropical cyclone] floods.” Schedel, Jr. and Schedel, 2018    “Flood events on the U.S. East Coast are not more severe or frequent than in the past.” Hodgkiins et al., 2017     “In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe … Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends. … The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded (Hartmann et al., 2013) that globally there is no clear and widespread evidence of changes in flood magnitude or frequency in observed flood records. … North American trends in … frequency of extremes in the 1980s and 1990s were similar to those of the late 1800s and early 1900s. There was no discernible trend in the frequency of extreme events in Canada. The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC (Hartmann et al., 2013) that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.” 7. U.S. (and global) drought has decreased McCabe et al., 2017     “In this study, a monthly water-balance model is used to simulate monthly runoff for 2109 hydrologic units (HUs) in the conterminous United States (CONUS) for water-years 1901 through 2014. … Results indicated that … the variability of precipitation appears to have been the principal climatic factor determining drought, and for most of the CONUS, drought frequency appears to have decreased during the 1901 through 2014 period.” Cheng et al., 2016       “The results thus indicate that the net effect of climate change has made agricultural drought less likely and that the current severe impacts of drought on California’s agriculture have not been substantially caused by long-term climate changes.” Prein et al., 2016       “Summary and Conclusion:Projected changes of a poleward extension of the subtropical dry zones simulated by climate models and the corresponding decrease of precipitation in the U.S. Southwest have not been found in observations to date because of the large natural climate variability.” 8. U.S. (and global) wildfire frequency has decreased Marlon et al., 2012  Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA      “Understanding the causes and consequences of wildfires in forests of the western United States requires integrated information about fire, climate changes, and human activity on multiple temporal scales. We use sedimentary charcoal accumulation rates to construct long-term variations in fire during the past 3,000 y in the American West and compare this record to independent fire-history data from historical records and fire scars. There has been a slight decline in burning over the past 3,000 y, with the lowest levels attained during the 20th century and during the Little Ice Age (LIA, ca. 1400–1700 CE). Prominent peaks in forest fires occurred during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (ca. 950–1250 CE) and during the 1800s.” “Analysis of climate reconstructions beginning from 500 CE and population data show that temperature and drought predict changes in biomass burning up to the late 1800s CE. Since the late 1800s , human activities and the ecological effects of recent high fire activity caused a large, abrupt decline in burning similar to the LIA fire decline. Consequently, there is now a forest “fire deficit” in the western United States attributable to the combined effects of human activities, ecological, and climate changes. Large fires in the late 20th and 21st century fires have begun to address the fire deficit, but it is continuing to grow.” Image Source: Marlon et al., 2012  Doerr and Santín, 2016     “Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades.” Earl and Simmonds, 2018     “We find that there is a strong statistically significant decline in 2001–2016 active fires globally linked to an increase in net primary productivity observed in northern Africa, along with global agricultural expansion and intensification, which generally reduces fire activity.” Image Source: Earl and Simmonds, 2018 Ward et al., 2018     “Globally, fires are a major source of carbon from the terrestrial biosphere to the atmosphere, occurring on a seasonal cycle and with substantial interannual variability. To understand past trends and variability in sources and sinks of terrestrial carbon, we need quantitative estimates of global fire distributions. … Global fire emissions of carbon increase by about 10% between 1700 and 1900, reaching a maximum of 3.4 Pg C yr−1 in the 1910s, followed by a decrease to about 5% below year 1700 levels by 2010.” Image Source: Ward et al., 2018 9. Financial losses/mortality from extreme weather have decreased Bouwer and Jonkman, 2018     “Global mortality from storm surges is decreasing … Changes in society’s vulnerability to natural hazards are important to understand, as they determine current and future risks, and the need to improve protection. Very large impacts including high numbers of fatalities occur due to single storm surge flood events. Here, we report on impacts of global coastal storm surge events since the year 1900, based on a compilation of events and data on loss of life. We find that over the past, more than eight thousand people are killed and 1.5 million people are affected annually by storm surges. The occurrence of very substantial loss of life (>10 000 persons) from single events has however decreased over time.” Pielke, 2018     “Since 1990 the world has seen a decrease in overall and weather-related disaster losses as a proportion of global GDP. This trend has occurred even as disaster losses have increased in absolute terms. The primary factor driving the overall increase in disaster losses is societal, mainly growth in populations and settlements at risk to the consequences of extreme events (IPCC, 2012).” Image Source: Pielke, 2018 Weinkle et al., 2018     “Consistent with observed trends in the frequency and intensity of hurricane landfalls along the continental United States since 1900, the updated normalized loss estimates also show no trend. A more detailed comparison of trends in hurricanes and normalized losses over various periods in the twentieth century to 2017 demonstrates a very high degree of consistency.” Image Source: Weinkle et al., 2018 10. 90% of the Holocene had more retreated/absent glaciers than today McKay et al., 2018     “In total, observations from 144 sites north of 57°N that span at least the interval from 6 to 2 ka, and that had median Holocene temporal resolution of <500 yr were included in the analysis. … Across all observations (Fig. 2a), the area-weighted total distribution of cooling onset ages indicates two primary intervals of when cooling began or accelerated. The first, beginning ca. 7 ka, primarily captures cooling following peak summer warm conditions in the early- to mid-Holocene, when nearly all Arctic glaciers were smaller than during 20th century positions. … The first-order structure of Holocene glaciation in the Arctic is a general increase in the size of glaciers from the early Holocene through the Little Ice Age (Fig. 3). From 8-6.5 ka, glaciers were uniformly retreated or absent throughout the Arctic.” Image Source: McKay et al., 2018 Bjørk et al., 2018     “We show that, during the period from 10.5 to 9.6 cal ka BP, the extent of Helheim Glacier was similar to that of today’s, after which it remained retracted for most of the Holocene until a re-advance caused it to reach its present extent at c. 0.3 cal ka BP, during the Little Ice Age (LIA). [The glacier’s present extent is not different than it was 300 years ago, during the Little ice Age.] Thus, Helheim Glacier’s present extent is the largest since the last deglaciation, and its Holocene history shows that it is capable of recovering after several millennia of warming and retreat. Furthermore, the absence of advances beyond the present-day position during for example the 9.3 and 8.2 ka cold events as well as the early-Neoglacial suggest a substantial retreat during most of the Holocene. … Our results show that the ice sheet significantly retreated during the HTM [Holocene Thermal Maximum] 8-5 ka BP when temperatures were 2-4°C warmer than now (Axford et al., 2013; Buizert et al., 2018).” Fjeldskaar et al., 2018     “About 60% of Svalbard is covered by glaciers today, but many of these glaciers were much reduced in size or gone in the Early Holocene.” Røthe et al., 2018    “During the early Holocene, the glaciers in the Vårfluesjøen catchment were considerably smaller than today or had even melted completely. … D’Andrea et al. (2012) […] point to increased heat transport via the West Spitsbergen Current, and accompanying increased winter precipitation, rather than cold temperatures, to have caused LIA expansions on Svalbard. … During the early and mid-Holocene period, other glacier reconstructions from the west coast of Svalbard suggests that many glaciers were small or completely melted during this time interval (Svendsen and Mangerud, 1997; Røthe et al., 2015; van der Bilt et al., 2015; de Wet et al., 2018). Mangerud and Svendsen (2018) postulated that August temperatures in Svalbard were 6°C warmer from 10000 to 9000 cal. yr. BP than they are today, based on the presence of Zirfaea crispate.” Kelley et al., 2018     “In this study, we reconstruct the timing and pattern of middle- and late-Holocene GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] margin fluctuations at two locations, ~190 km apart, in central West Greenland using radiocarbon-dated sediment cores from proglacial-threshold lakes. Our results demonstrate that deglaciation occurs at both sites during the early Holocene, with the ice sheet remaining in a smaller-than-present ice margin configuration until ~500 years ago when it readvanced into lake catchments at both sites. … Historical and remote-sensing records indicate that Nordenskiöld Gletscher has been stable or advancing since AD 1950 (Weidick, 1968, 1994). This evidence, in addition to the lack of a moraine or trimline marking the culmination of the late-Holocene advance fronting the ice margin, as occurs across much of the region, infers that the system is at or is still advancing to its late Holocene maximum extent. We note the difference between the ice margin locations on the laterals versus the terminus relative to the late-Holocene maximum position and attribute this to deepening of the glacial trough as described by Kaplan et al. (2009). In fact, observations at the terminus of Nordenskiöld Gletscher in 2013 documented that the terminus is currently advancing onto living tundra.” 11. Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling and gaining mass this century Engel et al., 2018     “Two small glaciers on James Ross Island, the north-eastern Antarctic Peninsula, experienced surface mass gain between 2009 and 2015 as revealed by field measurements. A positive cumulative surface mass balance of 0.57 ± 0.67 and 0.11 ± 0.37 m w.e. was observed during the 2009–2015 period on Whisky Glacier and Davies Dome, respectively. …  Ambrožová and Láska (2016) reported a significant decrease (0.03–0.15°C a−1 [-0.3 to -1.5°C per decade]) in the temperature along the AP [Antarctic Peninsula] over the 2005–15 period with the most prominent cooling at the Bibby Hill station on JRI [James Ross Island]. … The cumulative mass gain of the glaciers around the northern AP [Antarctic Peninsula] indicates a regional change from a predominantly negative surface mass balance in the first decade of the 21st century to a positive balance over the 2009–15 period. The change in the glacier mass balance follows a significant decrease in the warming rates reported from the northern AP [Antarctic Peninsula] since the end of the 20th century. The mass gain is also consistent with the regional trend of climate cooling on the eastern side of the AP [Antarctic Peninsula].” Image Source: Engel et al., 2018 Turner et al., 2016     “The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate [1999-2014], with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer.” Image Source: Turner et al., 2016 12. Since 1958, Greenland/Antarctica melt contribution to sea levels is just 1.5 cm Frederiske et al.,2018     “The trends and accelerations of the individual contributors to sea-level rise and their sum are shown in table 1. The estimated trend in sum of contributors is 1.3 ± 0.1 mm/y, which explains the reconstructed global-mean sea level trend of 1.5 ± 0.2 mm/y within the 1−σ confidence interval.  Also, the acceleration in the sum of contributors (0.07 ± 0.01 mm/y2) explains the reconstructed sea-level acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.02 mm/y2.” Image Source: Frederiske et al.,2018 Fettweis et al ., 2017     “SMB [surface mass balance, Greenland Ice Sheet] during the 1920–1930 warm period over Greenland was comparable to the SMB of the 2000s, due to both higher melt and lower precipitation than normal. … Finally, with respect to the 1961–1990 period, the integrated contribution of the GrIS SMB [Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance] anomalies over 1900–2010 is a sea level rise of about 15 ± 5 mm [1.5 centimeters], with a null contribution from the 1940s to the 2000s” 13. More global land area above sea level today than in the 1980s Donchyts et al., 2016     “Earth’s surface water change over the past 30 years [1985-2015] … Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas.”  (press release)    “Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists’ surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles). ‘We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,’ said Dr Baart.  ‘We were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.’” 14. 89% of the globe’s small islands have stable or growing shorelines Duvat et al., 2018     “This review first confirms that over the past decades to century, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization by sea-level rise. The global sample considered in this paper, which includes 30 atolls and 709 islands, reveals that atolls did not lose land area, and that 73.1% of islands were stable in land area, including most settled islands, while 15.5% of islands increased and 11.4% decreased in size. Atoll and island areal stability can therefore be considered as a global trend. Importantly, islands located in ocean regions affected by rapid sea-level rise showed neither contraction nor marked shoreline retreat, which indicates that they may not be affected yet by the presumably negative, that is, erosive, impact of sea-level rise. .. These results show that atoll and island areal stability is a global trend, whatever the rate of sea-level rise. Tuvaluan atolls affected by rapid sea-level rise (5.1 mm/yr; Becker et al., 2012) did not exhibit a distinct behavior compared to atolls located in areas showing lower sea-level rise rates, for example, the Federated States of Micronesia or Tuamotu atolls.” Ahmed et al., 2018     “This paper draws upon the application of GIS and remote sensing techniques to investigate the dynamic nature and management aspects of land in the coastal areas of Bangladesh. … This research reveals that the rate of accretion [coastal land growth] in the study area is slightly higher than the rate of erosion. Overall land dynamics indicate a net gain of 237 km2 (7.9 km2annual average) of land in the area for the whole period from 1985 to 2015.” Kench et al., 2018     “We specifically examine spatial differences in island behaviour, of all 101 islands in Tuvalu, over the past four decades (1971–2014), a period in which local sea level has risen at twice the global average (Supplementary Note 2). Surprisingly, we show that all islands have changed and that the dominant mode of change has been island expansion, which has increased the land area of the nation. … Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average [<2 mm/yr-1] (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls.” Image Source: Kench et al., 2018 15. Long-term (80+ years) global sea level rise acceleration not significant Tomasicchio et al., 2018     “The estimation of long-term sea level variability is of primary importance for a climate change assessment. Despite the value of the subject [sea level changes], no scientific consensus has yet been reached on the existing acceleration in observed values. …  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international organisation responsible for assessing the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, warned that at current trends, the projected increments in mean sea level (MSL) for the year 2100, relative to the 1986–2005 period [IPCC] are 400, 470, 480 and 630 mm, for the Representative Concentration Pathways scenarios indicated as RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, respectively. However, from the tide gauge records, the acceleration required to reach these large projected MSL [mean sea level] rises over the course of the twenty-first century is not evident. Even though the measurement of this acceleration is a topic with a long standing history (Douglas 1991; Church and White 2006; Jevrejeva et al. 2008), the most recent debate was initiated by a series of publications (Houston and Dean 2011a, b, c, d, e) that raised concerns about the general validity of the sea level projections; the authors did not find any acceleration in the sea level in USA tide gauge records during the twentieth century. Instead, for each time period they considered, the records showed small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide gauge records (Woodworth 1990; Douglas 1992; Woodworth et al. 2009). By using a different approach in data analysis, other researchers (Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011a, b; Donoghue and Parkinson 2011a, b) found the arguments of Houston and Dean (2011a, b, c, d, e) not convincing and showed that accelerations are present.” Parker and Ollier, 2017     “The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. The minimum length requirement of 50–60 years to produce a realistic sea-level rate of rise is also discussed in other works such as Baart et al. (2012), Douglas (1995, 1997), Gervais (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2008), Knudsen et al. (2011), Scafetta (2013a, b), Wenzel and Schröter (2014) and Woodworth (2011). … [T]he information from the tide gauges of the USA and the rest of the world when considered globally and over time windows of not less than 80 years […] does not support the notion of rapidly changing mass of ice in Greenland and Antarctica as claimed by Davis and Vinogradova (2017). The sea levels have been oscillating about a nearly perfectly linear trend since the start of the twentieth century with no sign of acceleration. There are only different phases of some oscillations moving from one location to another that do not represent any global acceleration.  The global sea-level acceleration is therefore in the order of + 0.002  ± 0.003 mm/year², i.e. + 2 ÷ 3 μm/year², well below the accuracy of the estimation.” Parker, 2018     “[T]he long-term tide gauges of the world show no significant sign of sea level acceleration since the start of the 20th century. … Ocean and coastal management in the area should be based on the accurate monitoring of the relative sea level rise and the subsidence of the land by coupled tide gauge and Global Navigation Satellite System measurements, rather than models’ predictions and speculations defocusing coastal management from more relevant situations than the non-existent threat of extreme sea level rise.” Wenzel and Schröter, 2014     “Global mean sea level change since 1900 is found to be 1.77 ± 0.38 mm year on average. … [T]he acceleration found for the global mean, +0.0042 ± 0.0092 mm year, is not significant, local values range from -0.1 mm year in the central Indian Ocean to +0.1 mm year in the western tropical Pacific and east of Japan.”

Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?! Twenty climate scientists, including Top UN scientist, call for RICO investigation of climate skeptics in letter to Obama

Top UN scientist Dr. Kevin Trenberth and 19 other scientists have become so tired of debating global warming that they are now apparently seeking to jail those who disagree with them. One of the scientists who signed the letter was Alan Robock of Rutgers University. Robock has expressed very positive views of Cuba’s Fidel Castro after trips there in 2010 and 2011. See: Rutger’s Prof. Alan Robock drools over Castro and his VIP treatment in 2010 trip to Cuba [email protected] – Robock’s enchanted meeting with Castro: I stayed at ‘nicest hotel…I went in a black Mercedes…I went to private meeting with Fidel & his family…we had photo taken together’   2011 Trip.   Prof. Robock & Fidel Castro in 2010 [Note: This call for treating skeptics as racketeers comes the same week that the New York Times promoted equating climate skeptics to Hitler. See: ‘The Next Genocide’- NYT OpEd: Climate ‘deniers’ present ‘intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s’ Update: World court should rule on climate science to quash skeptics, says Law Prof. Philippe Sands ] Climate skeptics heading to jail? Letter reproduced in full: Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren September 1, 2015 Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren, As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people. We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation. The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done. Sincerely, Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT # End letter # Related Links: UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s History Of Making Bold Claims Which Contradict Science Flashback: Ignorant Skeptics?: UN Scientist Prof. Trenberth says only ‘poorly informed’ scientists disagree with UN – Appeals to Authority: ‘The IPCC has spoken’ – Climate Depot Responds Flashback: Kevin Trenberth has said every weather event now influenced by global warming. They are turning themselves into anti-science activists. When you claim without proof, it’s an assertion — that ‘hey global warming is everywhere’ — it’s a religion feeling. It’s like saying God is everywhere and every action you take is guided by the hand of God. You can’t prove or disprove that’ World court should rule on climate science to quash skeptics, says Law Prof. Philippe Sands – Laments scientifically-settled questions such as whether climate change is even happening are still being challenged by “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential persons”, he said. Prof. Roger Pielke Jr reacts: ‘Int’l Court of Justice should rule on climate science to quash sceptics, prepare for trials says Prof. Philippe Sands’  Pielke Jr.: ‘WTF: Need to outlaw unwelcome scientific views of “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential persons”‘  Pielke Jr: ‘This week began with a NYT op-ed comparing climate skeptics to Hitler. It ends with multiple calls for skeptics to be jailed. Lost the plot?’  Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics – RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: RICO: IPCC and comrades may be prosecuted for racketeering – Naomi Oreskes claims ‘only prove that she is a dishonest and hateful Marxist shrew who just doesn’t want to look at any of these problems impartially.’ – ‘Climate alarmism is clearly the greatest racket in the world as of 2015.’ Global warming promoters: Use RICO on critics – ‘Letter to Obama suggests possible jail for opponents of climate agenda’ Skeptical Scientist: ‘Failed Climate Scientists Call For RICO Investigation To Stop Criticisms, And Non-Scientist Claims Scientists Will Cause Next Genocide’ – Dr. William Briggs: ‘These promulgators of a failed science want to sic the full force and might of United States Government on persons like yours truly and the companies or organizations that might fund me. (None do, unfortunately.)’  Scientists ask Obama for RICO investigation to end climate debate – According to journalist Marc Morano, “one of the scientists who signed the letter was Alan Robock of Rutgers University. Robock has expressed very positive views of Cuba’s Fidel Castro.” Morano also writes that “top U.N. scientist Dr. Kevin Trenberth and the 19 other scientists have become so tired of debating global warming that they are now apparently seeking to jail those who disagree with them.” The letter comes at a time when the global warming pause hit a new record length of 18 years 8 months.  Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on RICO! RICO and signing the death warrant for climate science – Curry: ‘My first reaction was that this was some kind of joke, or that some of these individuals didn’t know what they were signing.’ Curry schools signers of letter: First, you have been duped by the Merchants of Doubt book/movie. Third, the source of funding is not the only bias in research, and the greatest bias does not necessarily come from industry funding. Democrat Sen. Whitehouse: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics – Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI): ‘In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise…The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.’ Related Link: Merchants of Smear: Prosecute Skeptics Like Gangsters?! Warmist Naomi Oreskes likes the idea of having climate ‘deniers’ prosecuted under the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) – Oreskes: ‘I think a RICO style of prosecution if a smart lawyer thought there was some aspect of the law that had been broken’ Climate Depot Responds: ‘The warmists have it exactly backwards. It is the global warming proponents who are guilty of the tobacco tactics.’ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants To Jail His Political Opponents – Accuses Koch Brothers of ‘Treason’ – ‘They ought to be serving time for it’ This is not the first time global warming activists have sought to try their opponents with treason or jail them. In 2014, thewarmist Gawker website wrote: ‘Arrest Climate-Change Deniers’ – ‘Those denialists should face jail’ – ‘Criminally negligent’ – ‘It’s time to punish the climate-change liars’ In 2009, New York Times Paul Krugman accused Congressmen who voted against climate cap-and-trade bill of ‘treason against the planet!’ ‘Execute’ Skeptics! Krugman’s sentiment joined by fellow climate fear promoters In June 2009, a public appeal was issued on an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S. The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?” (For full story see: ‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’ – June 3, 2009) After all the attention drawn to it by Climate Depot, the Talking Points Memo article was later pulled and the website published a retraction and apology, but the sentiment was stark and unequivocal and has significant company among climate fear promoters. On June 5, 2009, Joe Romm of Climate Progress defended a posting on his website warning that climate skeptics would be strangled in bed for rejecting the view that we face a man-made climate crisis. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” warned the message posted on Climate Progress. Romm, a former Clinton Administration official, pulled the comments after Climate Depot drew attention to them. “The original was clearly not a threat but a prediction — albeit one that I certainly do not agree with. Since some people misread it, I am editing it,” Romm wrote. # Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship: NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists. A 2008 report found that ‘climate blasphemy’ is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation. In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called ‘Climate Criminals’ who are committing ‘Terracide’ (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to ‘shut down’ climate skeptic’s testimony at hearing. November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be ‘criminally irresponsible’ Excerpt: The U.N.’s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be “criminally irresponsible.” Yvo de Boer’s comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating. October 28, 2008: License to dissent: ‘Internet should be nationalized as a public utility’ to combat global warming skepticism – Australian Herald Sun U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007) Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus.” Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to “Holocaust Deniers” and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists. No Dissent Allowed! 79-Year old Skeptical Climate Scientist Victim of Witch-Hunt – Fears for his ‘safety’ after declaring himself a skeptic

Special Report: Morano testifies in WVA on climate school curriculum: ‘We must not tell kids there is no debate and no dissent is allowed’

  Submitted Written Testimony of Marc Morano, Publisher of Climate Depot & former staff of U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee  Presented to West Virginia Board of Education Meeting Charleston West VA on January 14, 2015 – West Virginia’s changes to the National Next Generation Science Standards Children deserve to have open scientific debate in school and allow dissenting views Submitted Testimony of Marc Morano – Publisher of Climate Depot – Morano also appeared and addressed the board in person Listen to Audio of Morano’s Oral Testimony Here. Charleston West VA, – January 14, 2014 – Morano: I want to thank the school board for hosting this public hearing on the changes to the climate curriculum in West Virginia schools. (Media coverage of Climate Depot here, here, here, here & here.) These changes are accurate, factual and should not be controversial. I will proceed point by point on each revision. (National Journal Features Climate Depot’s Morano warning of ‘indoctrination’ in testimony to W.VA Board Of Education Meeting – Board Votes To Reconsider Standards That ‘Cast Doubt’ On ‘Climate Change’) First, I am here to applaud the West Virginia (skeptical) changes to the curriculum. Even if you are not a global warming skeptic, these changes are basically fostering an open debate and they are against indoctrination. We must not tell kids there is no debate and no dissent is allowed. So even if you believe the UN and Al Gore, these changes made by the West Virginia board are accurate and scientifically valid. The proposed (climate skeptical) changes by this board were perfectly reasonable. With regards to the alleged ‘97% consensus’ – a lead UN author Dr. Richard Tol testified to the U.S. Congress that the 97% figure was “pulled out of thin air.” The 97% claim is a nonsense figure meant to intimidate when we have thousands of scientists out there openly dissenting – including Nobel Prize winners like Dr. Ivar Giaever, who actually endorsed President Obama, but he is a major global warming skeptic now. Every day more and more scientists are speaking out…scientists who used to believe that are changing their view. The science on virtually A-Z at this point is failing and in many instances the claims are moving in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts. We are going on 18 plus years with no global warming according to satellite data. You may hear about 2014 being the ‘hottest year’, but it is based surface data and hundredths of a degree difference between years. There were three basic changes that West Virginia made to the curriculum, 1) Changing it to read ‘rise AND Fall of temperatures. That is perfectly valid revision made by West Virginia. We have actually had a rise in temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, but temperatures fell from 1940-through the 1970s then we increased from the late 1970s to late 1990s. Now we are in a standstill. Temperature go up and down. Studies show the Earth has probably seen a temperature drop since the Medieval Warm Period. 2) In terms of the West Virginia changes adding the language to the curriculum about the accuracy of climate models, A study in Nature. (See: Study in journal Nature Climate Change: 114 out of 117 climate model predictions from 1990′s wildly overestimated global warming) So the West Virginia revisions on models questioning their accuracy are valid. 3) In terms of natural factors the revisions were accurate as well. All three of West Virginia’s revisions should be embraced even by those who agree with the UN and Al Gore. Even if you are not a global warming skeptic, the proposed changes by this board were perfectly reasonable and scientifically valid. There is nothing controversial here except the idea that we should allow open debate and not tell kids that they have to think a certain way. The original standards teach no debate. I urge you to keep the revisions, let science win out here in the end and do not suppress dissent. # Submitting statements for the record: Prominent scientists have weighed in on in support of West Virginia rejecting one-sided climate education standards. Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer who has authored 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, urged West Virginia to stand up to the global warming establishment and keep the revisions allow dissent. “You should not let yourself be deceived by those who claim that you are opposing “science.”  Science has been badly hurt by the global warming cult, and it will be hard to repair its reputation,” Happer wrote in a January 13, 2015 letter to the West VA school board in support of their state’s revisions to allow debate. “Thanks for your courage. There are thousands of scientists who feel as I do,” Happer added. (Dr. Happer’s full letter to the West Virginia School Board is reprinted below.) Another scientist urged West Virginia to stand strong against the climate activists who want children to be taught there is no debate on global warming. “The science is NOT settled at all, and it would be a great disservice to children to indoctrinate them with one currently-fashionable theory,” wrote Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen on January 13, 2015 to the West VA school board. Sheahen is an MIT educated physicist and author of the book “An Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity.” Sheahen is the writer of the popular newspaper column “Ask the Everyday Scientist.” Sheahen is featured as one of the more than 1000 dissenting scientists from man-made global warming. “The assertion that the ever-changing climate is dominated by CO2 simply does not hold up to numerically accurate scientific measurements,” Sheahen wrote. “Concerning science education for children, the most accurate phrasing is ‘Children should be taught HOW to think, not WHAT to think.’  The science curriculum should retain great flexibility and openness,” Sheahen wrote. # Climate Depot analysis of the revisions made by the Department.  The revisions were made to the draft standards before they the Board placed them on public comment, and subsequently adopted them. Original Version put forth by the National Next Generation Science Standards: S.6.ESS.6 ask questions to clarify evidence of the factors that have caused the rise in global temperatures over the past century. West Virginia School Board Revised Version: S.6.ESS.6 ask questions to clarify evidence of the factors that have caused the rise and fall in global temperature over the past century. Climate Depot Analysis: Global temperatures did fall from about 1940-1970s, culminating the global cooling scare of the 1970s. Temperatures then rose until late 1990s and currently we are going on over 18 years with a temperature standstill. Overall, the Earth has warmed since end of Little Ice Age in 1850. But depending on your time scale, the Earth temperatures have remained stable or cooled since the Medieval warm period from about 900-1300 AD. We have warmed since the Roman warming period. Geologically speaking, Earth is in one of the coolest periods on record. Rarely had the Earth been so cold as to support ice at both poles. So the West Virginia revisions adding ‘rise and fall in global temperatures’ are scientifically valid and should remain. # Original Version put forth by the National Next Generation Science Standards: S.9.ESS.14 analyze geoscience data and the results from global climate models to make an evidence-based forecast of the current rate of global or regional climate change and associated future impacts to Earth systems. West Virginia School Board Revised Version: S.9.ESS.14 analyze geoscience data and the predictions made by computer climate models to assess their creditability for predicting future impacts on the Earth System. Climate Depot Analysis: This West Virginia revision is scientifically valid and represents a great improvement over the original standards. Students need to know that climate models are failing and they are not supporting the dire man-made global warming narrative. Study in journal Nature Climate Change: 114 out of 117 climate model predictions from 1990′s wildly overestimated global warming Climate models are not ‘predictions’. UN Lead Author Kevin Trenberth has called them ‘emissions scenarios’ (LINK) UN scientist Jim Renwick said models do not account for half the variability in nature And lead forecasting expert Dr. Scott Armstrong rejected the climate models. See: Ivy League forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the UN IPCC violated 72.” # Original Version put forth by the National Next Generation Science Standards: S.HS.ENV.17 debate climate changes as it relates to greenhouse gases, human changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and relevant laws and treaties. West Virginia School Board Revised Version: S.HS.ENV.17 debate climate changes as it relates to natural forces such as Milankovitch cycles, greenhouse gases, human changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and relevant laws and treaties. Climate Depot Response: The idea that CO2 is the tail that wags the dog is no longer scientifically tenable. In the peer-reviewed literature we’re finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth’s axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust — all of these factors influence climate as well as CO2. New studies are countering the simple story we’ve been told of our SUVs creating a dangerously warm planet. In the proceedings of the National Academy of Science, there was a study blaming Chinese coal use for the lack of global warming. So, in an ironic twist, global warming proponents are now claiming that that coal use is saving us from dangerous global warming. Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, former chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania,  spoke out in 2007 against fears of rising CO2 impacts promoted by Gore and others. Giegengack noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.” (LINK) “[Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun’s heat. That’s just wrong … It’s a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa,” Giegengack explained. “It’s hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It’s easier to say temperature drives CO2,” he added. (LINK) ”The driving mechanism is exactly the opposite of what Al Gore claims, both in his film and in that book. It’s the temperature that, through those 650,000 years, controlled the CO2; not the CO2 that controlled the temperature,” he added. (LINK) Also see: New paper finds NH ice ages explained even with constant levels of CO2: ‘A paper published in Nature finds that ice ages in the Northern Hemisphere can be explained by Milankovitch cycles and the unique geography of the North American ice sheet’ # Morano further comments on West Virginia Standards: It is ironic that several speakers here today referred to alleged fossil fuel funded climate skeptics doing the bidding for industry. What has not been mentioned is that the education group Achieve, which is writing these Common Core educational standards is an Exxon-Mobil and Chevron funded group. See: ‘Our Contributors…have enabled Achieve to strive toward ensuring that all students succeed.’ Contributors include: ExxonMobil…Chevron…DuPont’ The ‘standards, like those for math and English Language Arts, were produced by Achieve, a nonprofit education group started by corporate leaders and some governors.’ It has also been reported that “the ACHIEVE standards were not authored by experts and are being advocated by climate activists. Looking at the 41 people who drafted the ACHIEVE standards, NONE are recognized climate experts. How can they develop climate science standards when they have no expertise?” Furthermore, it has been reported that “One ‘critical stakeholder’ of ACHIEVE is the National Center for Science Education — an activist group that Michael Mann and Bill McKibben are advisers to. NCSE has been leading the charge against the balanced WV curriculum.” The group Achieve is not beneath bullying and intimidation. The group reportedly told the West Virginia State Board of Education that if they did not follow word-by-word their standards on global warming, that they would throw West Virginia out as a member state. (Note: The leader of Achieve is Michael Cohen. Email: [email protected]) My Background: I am not a scientist, although I do occasionally play one on TV :). My background is in political science, which happens to be an ideal background for examining man-made global warming claims. I have been passionate about environmental issues since I began my career in 1991, having produced a documentary on the myths surrounding the Amazon Rainforest in 2000 and I was a fully credentialed investigative journalist who reported extensively on environmental and energy issues such as deforestation, endangered species, pollution and climate change. I am currently producing a new global warming documentary, Climate Hustle, which will present a skeptical view of the alleged man-made climate crisis. In my capacity as Communications Director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under Senator James Inhofe from 2006-2009, I was speech writer and hosted the award-winning U.S. Senate blog. I released the first ever U.S.  Government “Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming Alarmism” in 2006. I also authored the 255-pageSenate report of over 700 dissenting scientists on man-made global warming originally published in 2007 and updated in 2008, 2009. In 2010, the number of dissenting international scientists exceeded 1000. I am now the publisher of the award-winning Climate Depot and work daily with scientists who examine the latest peer-reviewed studies and data on the climate. Related Links: Watch: Morano & other skeptics featured in TV News in WVA on school curriculum “Global warming is far from settled science,” said Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot. ”Every day more and more scientists are speaking out…scientists who used to believe that are changing their view. Watch: Morano on W. VA TV: ‘Political correctness and pressure beared down on West VA and WVA folded’ Morano: ‘We come to stand up for science today and scientific dissent.  Even if you are not a global warming skeptic, the proposed changes by this board were perfectly reasonable and completely scientifically valid.  So what happened here today was political correctness and pressure beared down on West Virginia and West Virginia folded,’ said Marc Morano, Climate Depot publisher.   Morano in WVa: ‘Proposed changes by this board were perfectly reasonable and scientifically valid’ – Education Board Hears Debate about New Curriculum Involving Climate Change About 20 people spoke up at Wednesday’s meeting, and there were strong opinions from both sides. “Even if you are not a global warming skeptic, the proposed changes by this board were perfectly reasonable and scientifically valid,” Marc Marano, publisher of Climate Depot, said. Morano testifies in WVa: WV Board of Education removes controversial climate standards – “Global warming is far from settled science,” said Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot. ”Every day more and more scientists are speaking out…scientists who used to believe that are changing their view.” W.Va. state school board moves back toward original climate change standards National Journal Features Climate Depot’s Morano warning of ‘indoctrination’ in testimony to W.VA Board Of Education Meeting – Board Votes To Reconsider Standards That ‘Cast Doubt’ On ‘Climate Change’ National Journal: At West Virginia’s Board of Education meeting Wednesday, activists on both sides of the education debate pleaded their case… Marc Morano, a former staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a prominent climate-change skeptic, was on hand to argue that the altered standards should be kept in place. “I’m here to applaud the West Virginia changes … these changes are basically fostering an open debate and they are against indoctrination to tell kids that there is no debate and you cannot dissent,” Morano said. West Virginia decides to teach global warming propaganda to kids Listen Now: Climate Depot’s Morano shreds warmist efforts to brainwash children at the West Virginia Board of Education meeting Common Core Curriculum: A Look Behind the Curtain of Hidden Language: “They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association, both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. There was minimal public engagement in the development of the Common Core. Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states.” Instead, Common Core is being driven by policymakers in D.C. Common Core is set up in such a way that it can hardly be called voluntary. Common Core’s Little Green Soldiers New Science Standards Draw Some Criticism     Morano at West VA Capitol Being interviewed by TV News          

For more results click below