Search
Close this search box.

Search Results for: report thousand scientists dissent – Page 3

Climate Depot’s Exclusive Round Up of Climategate 2.0 — Read about the most comprehensive report on the latest global warming scandal

For latest, go to www.ClimateDepot.com (Morano’s statement here. & continuous updates on Climategate 2.0 here.) BREAKING NEWS: Climategate 2.0: Thousands of new emails from ‘confirm great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism’ – ‘And as before, they show the ‘scientists’ at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of AGW, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be’ Update: Climategate 2.0: 5,000 New Emails Confirm Pattern of Deception and Collusion by Alarmists Some key Climategate 2.0 points: ‘1) Actively subverting FOIA intent — 2) Admitting a) Hockey stick flawed & Steve M. is right, b) hide decline was dishonest’ c) climate models are pretty bad, and d) cherry picking results like Japan hurricanes to emphasize a pre-ordained message — 3) Trying to manipulate (and probably succeeding) who gets to be IPCC author — 4) Trying to manage the message (PR concern) — 5) Viewing science results as helping or hurting “the cause” — Mann especially’ Celebrate Science! Warmist David Appell on ClimateGate 2.0: ‘Their impact will be devastating…My guess is that these are going to throw the science off-kilter for perhaps the rest of this decade’ — ‘On a second reading of the stolen UAE emails leaked today, and just reading the README file emails, these sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating’ Climategate 2.0: Skeptic Craig Loehle: ‘My favorite one so far is where they admit tuning the models to 20th Century climate…’‘…which in debates (e.g., one I had in person with Michael Schlesinger and others at Judith’s) is strenuously denied’ Climategate 2.0: Jones advises e-mail deletion to avoid FOIA Jones: ‘I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process’ Climategate 2.0: Dept of Energy involved in hiding temperature data? This won’t go over well with the Republican Congress — Phil Jones reveals the Department of Energy supports hiding temperature data: ‘Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data’ Climate Depot’s Morano statement: ‘It appears that Climategate 2.0 has arrived to drain what little life there was left in the man-made global warming movement’ Morano: ‘The new emails further expose the upper echelon of the UN IPCC as being more interested in crafting a careful narrative than following the evidence. The release of thousands of more emails is quite simply another victory for science’ ‘Hockey stick’ debunking confirmed: Rob Wilson (?) confirms McIntyre’s debunking of Mann: ‘I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ n. hemisphere temps […] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about’ Climategate 2.0: Read 20 ‘Juicy’ emails – ‘They validate EVERYTHING the skeptics have been saying’ — Alarmist introspection admits dishonesty on hockey stick Jones laments blogsites as allowing deniers to find one another Systematic deletion of e-mails How Phil Jones misleads journalists Santer angry over not being able to silence skeptics Mann says true temp anomaly not known well Silence of the alarmists Wigley accuses ‘Mike’, other IPCC-ers of deception, dishonesty Spun science isn’t going to end well Department of Energy involved in hiding temperature data? Jones advises e-mail deletion to avoid FOIA Mann says Curry not helping ‘the cause’ ‘All models wrong’ IPCC models not worth a darn Hulme hired to be the hand of God Praying for the ‘Day After Tomorrow’ to work Catholicism an ‘extreme’ religion? Mann a dead-ender Mann paper slammed by colleague as ‘pathetic’ ‘Hockey stick’ debunking confirmed Hide the dissent Feelings more important than truth Kjellén has a better name for global warming Jones bans dissent on extreme weather Medieval Warm Period tough to erase Mann said skeptics ‘losing’ Climategate 2.0? # Steve McIntyre on ‘New Climategate Emails’ Climategate 2.0 excerps: ‘Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive’ — ‘I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic…’‘…and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year ‘reconstruction’ ClimateGate 2.0: A very large pile of ‘smoking guns’ — Mann: ‘The important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [RealClimate.org] is about’ 2009> Briffa: ‘I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!’ — — Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. Michael Mann email from 2006: ‘We certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do’ UK Guardian: Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online — Michael Mann is angry, says release is done by ‘agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry’ Climategate University Fires Back: ‘UEA: ‘Extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context’ Michael Mann feels heat: ‘I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre…’ ‘…and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests’ Climategate 2.0: ‘Early this morning,history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released 2 years ago in Nov. 2009’ ‘…and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time’ A grateful world thans FOIA! Climategate 2.0: ‘It appears it’s all on again. The sordid details, honest thoughts, and human folly on display. (If true, thank you to Foia.)’ Michael Mann responds to Climategate 2.0: ‘They look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all’ Physicist Dr. Motl on Climategate 2.0: Emails ‘surely show that Michael Mann is a fraudster even according to most of his colleagues’‘…and most of his colleagues still have failed to act, well, impartially in their business…this distasteful stuff was written by Jones, Mann, and their comrades whose final moment is hopefully coming’ BBC: Climategate 2.0? ‘New release’ of climate emails Sen. Inhofe: ‘If the first Climategate scandal – and the over one hundred errors in the IPCC science that were revealed in its wake – were not enough…’ ‘…the apparent release of the Climategate 2.0 emails is just one more reason to halt the Obama EPA’s job killing global warming agenda’ Climategate 2.0: Silence of the alarmists: ‘They knew the hockey stick was junk science but kept it a secret’ — Swiss researcher Heinz Wanner writes: ‘In my [IPCC-TAR] review […] I crit[i]cized […] the Mann hockey[s]tick […] My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times…I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science’ Climategate 2.0: Jones bans dissent: ‘There shouldn’t be someone else at [UEA] with different views [from ‘recent extreme weather is due to global warming’] – at least not a climatologist’ Climategate 2.0: ‘All models wrong’ — Phil Jones comments on the climate models: ‘Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds’ Mann paper slammed by colleague as ‘pathetic’ Climategate 2.0: Wigley accuses ‘Mike’, other IPCC-ers of deception, dishonesty Mann says Curry not helping ‘the cause’ Ben Santer angry over not being able to silence skeptics Climategate 2.0: Jones laments blogsites as allowing deniers to find one another Jones: ‘Issue here is blogsites have allowed these climate change deniers to find one another around the world’ Climategate 2.0 email: ‘No one can really forecast weather, much less climate, at this point’ — ‘California State U. faculty member Gary Sharp argues ‘warm has always been better than cold for humanity,’ controlling ‘greenhouse’ gases is not an appropriate focus of science, and hurricanes are less frequent with warming’ Michael Mann admits deleting all criticisms from ‘McIntyre and his minions’ – Mann: ‘So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate’ Climategate 2.0: Phil Jones finds a way around FOIA requests, says his email will self-destruct in 10 seconds — ‘This message will self destruct in 10 seconds! Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research U’ Phil Jones: ‘I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing’ — Jones: ‘I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent’ Climategate, Part Duh! ‘The latest release of thousands of emails may…release the rest of humanity from the penalties and costs imposed by the global warming hoax’ UK Dailly Mail: New leak of hacked global warming scientist emails: A ‘smoking gun’ proving a conspiracy – or just hot air? — Climategate 2.0: ‘We’re choosing periods to show warming’ — ‘Science is being manipulated – it might not be too clever in the long run’ — ‘Climate change is a “better label” than global warming’ — ‘Many thanks for your paper – and congratulations for reviving global warming’ Prof. McKitrick’s new paper: ‘What is Wrong With the IPCC? Proposals for Radical Reform’ — ‘Reform Or Abandon The IPCC’ Climategate 2.0: The Warmists’ seven stages of grief — ‘Stage 1: they aren’t real emails Stage 2: they are real emails but they aren’t in context’ — ‘Stage 3: they are in context, but that’s how scientists work Stage 4: ok, this isn’t really science, but you guys stole the emails! Stage 5: this is old stuff Stage 6: this is nothing Stage 7: look everyone! Winter storm! See, we have proof of our theories now’ AP: Climategate 2.0 emails ‘appeared to show climate scientists talking in conspiratorial tones about ways to promote their agenda’ Wash Post features Climate Depot: ‘Morano, a prominent climate skeptic and publisher of the Web site Climate Depot, welcomed the e-mails’ release’ — Morano: ‘The new emails further expose the upper echelon of the U.N. IPCC as being more interested in crafting a careful narrative than following the evidence,” he wrote in an e-mail’ ABC News cites Climate Depot on Climategate 2.0: ‘The great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism’ NYT: New Trove of Stolen E-Mails From Climate Scientists Is Released Climategate 2.0: The Hypocrisy, Fraud & Arrogance of Original Climategate Is Confirmed The Shameful Paper: ‘2005 exchange between Trenberth & Jones…which shows them deciding together to exclude paper from IPCC for ‘political’ reasons, and it was indeed excluded’ A new Climategate scandal, familiar cast of characters # For continuous updates on Climategate 2.0 see here.

Update: 1000 + Scientist Report Presented to UN During Climate Summit in Cancun

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Wolfgang Mueller December 9, 2010 (+521) 998 225 9854 (Cancun, Mexico) At a press conference this afternoon at the Cancunmesse of COP 16, CFACT showcased three prominent experts leveling strong criticism of the current U.N. climate negotiations and its scientific underpinnings. “There is not now and never has been a scientific consensus supporting catastrophic man-made warming,” said CFACT president David Rothbard, “nor is consensus an appropriate scientific approach. Science must be grounded in such inconvenient approaches as fact, openness and verification.” Marc Morano, founder of CFACT’s Climate Depot, released a 321-page report listing 1,000 + scientists who dissent over man-made global warming which he termed a “consensus buster.” “Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community,” Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring is quoted as saying in Morano’s report. “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today. The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed,” declared Research Chemist William C. Gilbert. Morano’s report can be downloaded at www.ClimateDepot.com. Dr. Roy Spencer, who co-founded NASA’s temperature satellite service, challenged a paper on cloud feedback released by Dr. Andrew Dessler in Science today. “Andy Dessler’s study will not stand hard scrutiny. COP16 delegates worried about the ongoing credibility problems of climate modeling will find no solace in Dessler’s work,” Spencer said. Spencer explained that prevailing climate models do not adequately account for feedbacks and are particularly weak in accounting for the effect of clouds which his research shows to produce negative feedback. Prevailing climate models are not adequate to reliably predict future climate, overstate warming trends, and should not be used as a basis in which to undertake severe action. Lord Christopher Monckton discussed how the current climate treaty poses a threat to national sovereignty and individual freedom. He released a statement which provides a peek into the massive bureaucracy proposed by climate campaigners, a bureaucracy which no one expects to be effective at anything other than raking in funds and trying to impose its non-democratic will on sovereign nations. On Wednesday, CFACT brought COP16 delegates and press to tour a local village without electricity to show the impacts of energy poverty. CFACT, which has for years sponsored environmental and development projects in the Cancun area, announced that it is installing electric lights in the village school for the first time. “As COP16 considers the future of the world’s energy policy, it is vital that the voices of those suffering energy poverty are heard,” said Rothbard. COP16 has been marked by failure to advance a climate treaty with even UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon terming the negotiations “fruitless.” The climate debate, which started with bullying, name calling, fear and intimidation, is gradually becoming more balanced, despite the massive funds and resources available to promote alarmist views. Opinion polls show public acceptance of the case for catastrophic man-made global warming continuing to slide. The best COP16 seems able to hope for at the moment is minor agreements, with a large transfer of wealth over deforestation the strongest prospect. No treaty appears possible at COP16 and no treaty is warranted. Both the science and proposed solutions to any warming are unsound. However, last-minute back room deals requiring the expansion of international funding and bureaucracy are always a possibility – actions CFACT strongly warns against. “For years scientists, elected officials, policy experts and anyone concerned with global warming have feared to challenge climate orthodoxy,” Rothbard said. “They feared retaliation, ostracism and damage to their careers. As the errors and falsehoods behind the warming campaign continue to come to light, the public has voted with its feet and no longer support it. Many thousands who previously feared to speak up are now eager to challenge warming propaganda which won’t do well in an even-handed discussion. If your paycheck is dependent on the global warming industry, this would be a smart time to start seeking career counseling.” CFACT is an international public policy organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. which promotes market and technological solutions to issues of environment and development. More information at www.CFACT.tv and WWW.CFACT.org. – # # # –

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

  Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report INTRODUCTION: More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun. The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming — As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.” Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears: “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium. “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems. “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.” “I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.” “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010] “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring’s quote.] “Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004” by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.” “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research. “We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. “There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.” “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics. End Selected Excerpts # The rapidity of the global warming establishment’s collapse would have been unheard of just two years ago. Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical Society, calling “Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life.” UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn was blunt about what Climategate revealed: “The case for climate fears is blown to smithereens…the whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed.” Even the usually reliable news media has started questioning the global warming claims. Newsweek Magazine wrote in May 2010 about the “uncertain science” and how “climate researchers have lost the public’s trust” from a “cascade of scandals” from the UN IPCC. Newsweek compared the leaders of the climate science community to “used-car salesmen. “Once celebrated climate researchers are feeling like the used-car salesmen” and the magazine noted that “some of IPCC’s most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles…Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments.” For full list of Climategate related scandals See: Climate Scandals: List Of 94 Climate-Gates — 94 climate-gates total — 28 new gates — 145 links to reports with details As the global warming edifice crumbled in 2010, the movement lost one of its leading lights due to the Climategate revelations. Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech, explained her defection from the global warming activist movement. “There is ‘a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink…’ They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging,” Curry wrote in 2010. Curry critiqued the UN IPCC for promoting “dogma” and clinging to the “religious importance” of the IPCC’s claims. “They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them,” Curry lamented. “The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics…the IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy,” Curry wrote. Curry called the Climategate fallout nothing short of a “rather spectacular unraveling of the climate change juggernaut…I immediately realized that [Climategate] could bring down the IPCC…I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field…While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the ‘science hadn’t changed.” [Note: Curry is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] Also see: ‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’] [Note: There were many Cilmategate inquiries that sought to downplay Climategate, but they fell short of their goal and were labeled as nothing more than the “global warming establishment exonerating the global warming establishment.” See here, here, and here. The InterAcademy Council (IAC) was the most competent of the inquires.] As new data and science continued to call into question man-made global warming claims, one of the movements leading fear promoters shocked the world by beginning to retreat from his dire predictions. Green guru James Lovelock warned in 2007 that, “Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic.” Lovelock illustrates how the climate of the climate change movement has been transformed in the last year. In May 2010, Lovelock shocked the world by announcing: “Everybody might be wrong. Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out.” Lovelock went even father by noting how the science of global warming is in its infancy and “we haven’t got the physics worked out yet.” “The great climate science centers around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet,” Lovelock explained. Lovelock now openly praises skeptics and worries that climate fear promotion is akin to religion. In March of 2010, Lovelock said: “The skeptics have kept us sane…They have kept us from regarding climate science as a religion. It had gone too far that way.” [Note: Lovelock is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] [Note: Even the UN has grown more uncertain about the science. See: UN Fears (More) Global Cooling Commeth! IPCC Scientist Warns UN: We may be about to enter ‘one or even 2 decades during which temps cool’ — Admits ‘Jury is still out’ on ocean cycle’s temp impact!] More woes for the movement were felt when left-leaning environmental activists began jumping ship. See: Left-wing Env. Scientist Denis Rancourt Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’ & Meet the green who doubts ‘The Science’: Environmentalist Peter Taylor ‘explains why he’s skeptical about manmade global warming — and why greens are so intolerant’ & Activists at green festivals expressing doubts over man-made climate fears. “One college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, ‘I’m not sure climate change is real,’” according to a report from the New York Green Festival. 2010 saw the once vaunted UN IPCC now become the object of ridicule and scrutiny. In June 2010, Climate Scientist Mike Hulme took apart a key claim. Hulme noted that claims such as “2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate” are disingenuous. Hulme noted that the key scientific case for Co2 driving global warming was reached by a very small gaggle of people. “That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.” [Note: Hulme is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] In another blow to the UN IPCC’s carefully crafted image, was Scientist Dr. William Schlesinger admission in that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. Schlesinger said, “Something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate.” By Schlesinger’s own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. Also note, that climate requires a wide range of disciplines: See: ‘There are more than 100 expert sub disciplines involved in climate change studies’ & Science magazine confused about who is a ‘prominent climate scientist’ — ‘there is no specific climate discipline’ & Claims of ‘overwhelming majority’ of scientists exposed as laughable! ‘There are just 94 authors responsible for compiling the report in which…the [UN IPCC’s] modeling case for alarm rests’ The notion of climate “tipping points”, popularized by former Vice President Al Gore and NASA Scientist James Hansen, became the object of derision as well in 2010. See: 190-year climate ‘tipping point’ issued — Despite fact that UN began 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ in 1989! Climate Depot Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global Warming ‘Tipping Points’ — Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium — Earth ‘Serially Doomed’ Once respected global warming stalwarts like NASA’s James Hansen descended into political and ideological activism by being arrested multiple times protesting coal use. Hansen also endorsed a book which calls for ‘”ridding the world of Industrial Civilization”. Hansen declared the author “has it right…the system is the problem.” Hansen did this despite the fact that the book proposes ‘”razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine.” The Grist eco-magazine writer David Roberts noted in August 2010: “‘I know I’m not supposed to say this, but James Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist terribly. All influence lost.” Energy Sec. Chu came under fire for claiming science told him what the world was going to be like 100 years from now. See: Obama’s ‘Climate Astrologer’: Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows ‘what the future will be 100 years from now’ Obama Science Advisor John Holdren found his knowledge of the science of climate change come under scrutiny after he issued a bizarre warning about the possible loss of WINTER sea ice in the arctic. See: Obama science advisor: John Holdren ridiculed for claiming Arctic could be ICE FREE IN WINTER! The U.S. Congressional cap-and-trade bill collapse and the UN climate treaty failure has left disillusioned within the global warming movement. Gore has admitted to feeling “a little depressed.” And it has left a spectacle of world leaders promising verbal non-binding agreements to limit the earth’s temp have left modern society attempting to ape primitive cultures efforts to control the climate. See: Blaming all recent weather events on man-made global warming is akin to astrology & Climate Astrology — ‘It Has Been Foretold’ of Extreme Weather: ‘UN IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calendars’ In addition, the scientific underpinnings and the public support around the globe has dropped so significantly that there is now open talk of moving on to the “next eco-scare” Demoted: UN officially throws global warming under the bus: UN now says case for saving species ‘more powerful than climate change’ – May 21, 2010 & Time for next eco-scare already?! As Global Warming Movement Collapses, Activists Already ‘Test-Marketing’ the Next Eco-Fear! ‘Laughing Gas’ Crisis? Oxygen Crisis? Plastics? The carefully crafted “consensus” of man-made global warming has unraveled. See: Prominent Geologist Dr. Easterbrook Slams Geological Society of America’s climate statement ‘as easily refuted by data that clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and global climate change’ & American Meteorological Society Members Reject Man-made Climate Claims: 75% Do Not Agree With UN IPCC Claims — 29% Agree ‘Global Warming is a Scam’ & Meteorologists Reject U.N.’s Global Warming Claims: Only 1 in 4 American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agree with UN In 2009, the world’s largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS’s climate activist editor. A 2010 Open Letter signed by more than 130 German scientists urging German Chancellor to “reconsider” her climate views. See: ‘Consensus’ Takes Another Hit! More than 130 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears ‘Pseudo ‘Religion’; Urge Chancellor to ‘reconsider’ views – August 4, 2009 More than 100 international scientists challenged President Obama’s climate claims, calling them “simply incorrect.” In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that “the science is NOT settled.” On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” Scientific meetings are being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ & see full reports here & here – Also see: UN IPCC’s William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ] Despite these developments, global warming promoters have sought to cite a survey alleging 97% of climatologists agree with the “consensus” view. But the survey does not hold up to scrutiny. See: ‘Consensus’ claims challenged: Only 77 scientists were interviewed to get 97.4% agreement — ‘It would be interesting to learn who these individuals are’ & Climate Con: 97% ‘Consensus’ Claim is only 76 Anonymous Self-Selected Climatologists # This Climate Depot Special Report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and web links to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008. The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process – LINK) Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) The NAS has come under fire for its lobbying practices. See: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill & Cicerone’s Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group — ‘political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov’t funding’ MIT’s Richard Lindzen harshly rebuked NAS president Cicerone in his Congressional testimony in November 2010. Lindzen testified: “Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.” [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ] While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) “Consensus” has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes. Scientists caution that the key to remember is “climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables,” not just CO2. UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver. “As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets,” Stott wrote in 2008. Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this fact slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors,” RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.] # # Read Full Report: Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims    

Horner: Virginia’s Cavalier Ethics: ‘Mann used…hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars building on his work and the name he had created for himself with the Hockey Stick’

  Special to Climate Depot Virginia’s Cavalier Ethics By Chris Horner Virginia Attorney General Ken Cucinelli is a smart, aggressive conservative who scares the heck out of the Left, which includes the establishment media. And former University of Virginia tree-ring expert Michael Mann is a darling of the same crowd. This ensured a combustible mix when, exercising his authority (and, I suggest, responsibility) under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, Cucinelli sought records from the University of Virginia which were produced during Mann’s days there. It was from this perch that Mann developed the infamous and now disgraced “hockey stick.” The Hockey Stick portrayed for the first time a stable climate until the horrors of Industrial Man. Then temperatures began an unprecedented spike. Or so we were told. Often and loudly. Mann’s algorithm rewrote history so that it was no longer as those who lived it had chronicled in diaries, agricultural records and cultural artifacts. That politically expedient abandonment of a thousand years of accumulated knowledge was just too good to receive a skeptical reception. It was instead hailed as the “smoking gun” of the IPCC Third Assessment Report – in a chapter which, by chance, Mann was lead author – and proof of man-made global warming. Upon scrutiny by the Wegman Committee, this proved to be no more than Mann-made warming. Mann’s house of cards began to collapse, but not before he had parlayed it into a research unit at Penn State. Along the way Mann used University of Virginia resources and otherwise hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars building on his work and the name he had created for himself with the Hockey Stick. Then late last year ClimateGate exposed the climate industry, through 1,000 emails, computer code and code annotations showing how scientists collaborated to subvert the peer-review process, distort research, and violate transparency laws. The focus of much of this subterfuge was protecting Mann’s work from challenge. ClimateGate placed a billowing cloud of smoke in the public domain suggesting that Mann operated in violation of the Virginia taxpayer-protection statute. Cucinelli is looking to see if there is fire. The Left is furious. I suggest they know what he will find. Now, suddenly, the University of Virginia, Michael Mann, the Washington Post and others among the politically attuned Left are up in arms about this law over which, incidentally, they were silent in the past. Their true objection appears to be over Cucinelli daring to apply the law to one of their own. The arguments to date by all comers – including prominent skeptics Steven McIntyre and Chip Knappenberger – distill to an acknowledgement that the law applies but concluding it’s a bad idea to actually apply it. That’s actually not an argument. Lost in their hysteria is that the law passed Virginia’s legislature unanimously. 99-0 in the House of Delegates, 40-0 in the Senate. No amendment was made to exempt academics or those whose politics are correct. No similar paroxysms of indignation issued at the time, or since. Until it was applied to them, or those they identify or agree with. As further proof that the legislature was serious, it created a ten-year statute of limitations. Mann’s defenders embrace the dissent of McIntyre, the Hockey Team’s original tormentor. This is particularly odd given that this statistics expert wasn’t sufficiently a “scientist” for their standards when it came to catching their hijinks with statistics. But, now, Steve’s enough of a lawyer for them in this pinch. I may be at somewhat of a disadvantage in any discussion about this statute, having read it. But consider the following. The statute makes it unlawful to engage in a variety of untruthful behavior at taxpayer expense (§ 8.01-216.3). § 8.01-216.4, states that “The Attorney General shall investigate” such matters – presumably contemplating those times, like these, no “fishing” is necessary given the wealth of information in the public domain revealing the possibility of violation. § 8.01-216.10, “Civil investigative demands; issuance”, states that “Whenever the Attorney General has reason to believe that any person may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or information relevant to a false claims law investigation, the Attorney General may, before commencing a civil proceeding under this article, issue in writing and cause to be served upon such person, a civil investigative demand requiring such person” produce and testify about the materials at issue. That is what Cucinelli has done. If Cucinelli finds a violation, he may bring a civil action. The statute is clear. So the Left is having fits of political cover for the activist UVA administration. Here’s the coup de grace: the University of Virginia has indicated that it will not cooperate with the Attorney General, but instead will seek judicial determination that they need not comply with the law whose terms on their face apply to the records at issue. At the same time, the University has notified former Mann colleague, Dr. Pat Michaels, that Michaels’ records are about to be turned over to Greenpeace, under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. To date the University has refused at least one state lawmaker copies of Mann’s records under the FOI Act on the grounds that Mann left the University, so they were destroyed. Oddly, Michaels left the school, too. I am informed he was told, upon confronting them, that “different peoples’ records are treated differently.” Anyone who knows the players’ respective profiles and histories sees how this is not merely sleazy or even abusive. It is prima facie malicious. Dr. Michaels may well end up a wealthy man when all is said and done. Of course, as always, it will be the taxpayer, not those who have done wrong, who actually pay. The media and the rest of the Left are getting the Mann issue wrong with their shrieks of “witch hunt!”. This rhetoric and the organized campaign surely seem designed to pressure Cucinelli to back off, eschewing his legal obligation to investigate. This is yet another disgraceful episode for them. But it is also a disgraceful day for the University of Virginia.  

Flashback: Say it ain’t so! AP’s Borenstein Reports: ‘The Wind seems to be dying down…the cause may be global warming’

Associated Press science reporter Seth Borenstein reported on June 10, 2009 that global warming may be causing the winds to die down in the U.S. Borenstein’s article, titled “Not so windy: Research suggests winds dying down” reports: The wind, a favorite power source of the green energy movement, seems to be dying down across the United States. And the cause, ironically, may be global warming-the very problem wind power seeks to address. Borenstein also noted: “Several outside experts mostly agree that there are signs that wind speed is decreasing and that global warming is the likely culprit.” The article continues: “[The study] raises a new side effect of global warming that hasn’t been looked into before.” [Editor’s Note: Yes, this does appear to be an alleged “new side effect” of man-made global warming. For a complete list of alleged impacts of warming see here: A complete list of things caused by global warming – Perhaps this is why a top Japanese scientist recently compared global warming claims to “astrology.” ] Borenstein’s article continues: In global warming, the poles warm more and faster than the rest of the globe, and temperature records, especially in the Arctic, show this. That means the temperature difference between the poles and the equator shrinks and with it the difference in air pressure in the two regions. Differences in barometric pressure are a main driver in strong winds. Lower pressure difference means less wind. [End AP article excerpt.] But Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles, challenged the new study in an exclusive interview with Climate Depot. “Wait a minute! Isn’t a mainstay of global warming alarmism the claim that global warming will produce greater numbers of more intense storms?” Deming told Climate Depot on June 10, 2009. “How can they have more intense storms from the same effect that is lessening winds? They appear to be claiming that global warming will simultaneously increase and decrease wind velocities,” Deming said. “For thousands of years, philosophers and theologians have concluded that not even God could create a logical contradiction, such as allowing something to simultaneously exist and non-exist,” he added. Others are joining in to mock Borenstein’s article. University of Colorado Professor Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. ridiculed the AP article for what he termed a “Climate Rorschach Test as News.” “Apparently an AP news article out today on how we don’t know if global warming is making the winds blow with less gusto is not a parody, despite all indications to the contrary,” Pielke Jr. wrote. Pielke is at the University’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. To his credit, Borenstein did note the many flaws and lack of data associated with the study’s claims. “That information doesn’t provide the definitive proof that science requires to connect reduced wind speeds to global warming, the authors said,” Borenstein reported. Borenstein also wrote: “The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists disagree whether that is happening… Still, the study, which will be published in August in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, is preliminary. There are enough questions that even the authors say it’s too early to know if this is a real trend or not.” [Editor’s Note: Borenstein has slightly improved his balance in global warming reporting in recent times, despite a woeful history. See: 1) AP’s Borenstein in a PANIC: ‘Obama left with little time to curb global warming’…’cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming’ – December 14, 2008 2) Scientists Denounce AP’s Borenstein For Hysterical Global Warming Article – December 15, 2008 3) Kudos to AP’s Seth Borenstein for writing the most balanced of all the media’s articles about this new Antarctic study – January 21, 2009 4) Two dozen prominent scientists denounce AP’s Borenstein’s article promoting sea level fears in the year 2100 – September 24, 2007 5) AP’s Borenstein excludes scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering claims of allegedly ‘melting’ Antarctic – March 27, 2008 6) AP’s BORENSTEIN INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE – June 27, 2006 7) AP’s Borenstein inaccurately described scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels’ – July 27, 2006 ] Borenstein also cited dueling Real Climate global warming activists in his June 10, 2009 global warming wind article: The new study “demonstrates, rather conclusively in my mind, that average and peak wind speeds have decreased over the U.S. in recent decades,” said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. A naysayer is Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist in New York who said the results conflict with climate models that show no effect from global warming. He also doubts that any decline in the winds that might be occurring has much of an effect on wind power. [ End article excerpt. For complete AP article go here: ] Pielke, Jr. noted the apparent disagreement of the Real Climate activists about the wind study: “Has global warming reduced windspeeds with potential implications for wind power? Well obviously we don’t know, but if you’d like to believe that it does, you can justify that belief by citing Michael Mann. And if you’d like to believe that it does not, you can justify that belief by citing Gavin Schmidt. Climate science as Rorschach test, film at 11.” Related Media Links: Wash. Post reporting makes progress! Article concedes sea level computer model ‘predictions could be flawed or flat wrong’ – June 9, 2009 NYT and Reporter Revkin Issue ‘Correction’ – Admit ‘Error’ in Front Page Global Warming Article Touted By Gore! NYT’s Revkin: ‘lowers himself to the level of debate we’re used to seeing from the likes of George Monbiot’ Geologist Chides Revkin of New York Times for ‘Strange, Silly’ Climate Article – April 23, 2009 UK’s Lord Monckton continues attack on NYT’s Revkin for ‘mendacious article’ Lord Monckton accuses NYT’s Revkin of ‘deliberate misrepresentation’ in climate article Gore Mouthing-Off About Make-Believe Madoffs More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Andrew Revkin’s attempt to smear skeptics detailed! – March 10, 2009 Update: More Revkin Woes – Was Climatologist Christy accurately quoted in NYT? – March 11, 2009 Challenge to Andrew Revkin of NYT From Marc Morano – January 16, 2009 CBS Newsman Charles Osgood A Climate Skeptic? Questions Whether Quiet Sun May ‘Counteract’ Global Warming – April 21, 2009 CBS News reporter compares global warming skeptics to be the equivalent of “Holocaust deniers.” – 2006 Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears – September 24, 2007 Newsweek’s Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism – August 5, 2007 Media Covering Up UN Global Warming Report’s Political Agenda, Senator Inhofe Charges – January 31, 2007 “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming” -September 25, 2006 ABCNEWS Climate Reporter: ‘Scientists tell us civilization as we know it is over’ “I don’t like the word ‘Balance”- Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter – October 30, 2006 New York Times Op-Ed Heat Wave Hype Melts Under Scrutiny NY Times Aug 2006 oped BROKAW’S OBJECTIVITY COMPROMISED IN GLOBAL WARMING SPECIAL – July 11, 2006 AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE June 27, 2006 CNN Anchor Cited Fictional Hollywood Global Warming Movie, The Day After Tomorrow, to Defend His Science Reporting – October 3, 2006 Newsweek Admits Error on 70’s Predictions of Coming Ice Age – October 24, 2006 US SENATE GLOBAL WARMING MEDIA HEARING EXPOSED ALARMIST MEDIA – December 6, 2006

Flashback: Skeptics ‘slaughtered’? Global Warming Professor Stephen Schneider boasts he could ‘slaughter skeptical scientists in public debate!’

  Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, a prominent proponent of man-made global warming fears has publicly challenged scientists skeptical of warming fears to debate. (Schneider’s public website with bio and contact info is here. ) Schneider was interviewed by Thomas Fuller of the San Francisco Examiner on May 24, 2009. [Update: Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. accepts the global warming debate challenge. See: Pielke Sr. ‘I would be glad to debate Dr. Schneider…he represents a ‘narrow perspective on climate science’ – May 24, 2009 ] Examiner Excerpt: Question: More specifically, the principal skeptic websites (Watt’s Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science) that I look at regularly seem to think they are winning the day. They think data is coming in that questions the established paradigm. Schneider: They have been thinking that as long as I have observed them and they have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them–a petroleum geologist’s opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientists opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are “winning” why don’t they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings–not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute–but with those with real knowledge–because they’d be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol’ me. It’s easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal. […] Question: How would you characterize the state of play regarding scientific discussion regarding anthropogenic contributions to global warming? What is happening in science today that bears on the debate? Schneider: Not much change over the past few decades, except nature is cooperating with theory as formerly theoretical projections like heat waves and ice melt is now observed–at faster rates than predicted. All in IPCC and NAS reports. Why ice is melting faster than the models suggest is still not known, but certainly not encouraging! For complete interview with Schneider see Examiner’s article here: Related Links: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing – April 23, 2009 NASA’s James Hansen: Skepticism ‘can confuse the public’ Monckton’s Report: 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing…US Congress told climate change is not real Monckton’s Letter to Represenatives Ed Markey & Joe Barton – March 30, 2009 Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton – March 19, 2007 Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate – March 16, 2007 Lord Monckton Declared Victor in Global Warming Debate – By His Opponent! – August 19, 2008 Debate Over Whether ‘Global Warming is a Global Crisis’ – March 6, 2009 Climate Depot’s Morano debates former Clinton Official Romm – April 6, 2009  

Today’s ‘green theology,’ is leading a neo-feudal war on the people: The elites are steadily impoverishing the working and middle classes.

JOEL KOTKIN: Excerpts: The middle class is also under pressure from green ideology. Perhaps the once aspirational middle orders will resign themselves to renting – a future where they will ‘own nothing and be happy’, as the gnomes of Davos suggest. Maybe so, at least with sufficient drugs and videogames. But as the younger generations age, they won’t be able to fall back on their own assets, and instead will have to rely on the state. … Today’s green theology, adopted by both the bureaucratic clerisy and oligarchic elite, has little room for the robust economic growth that might sustain a comfortable middle class. Meanwhile, the elites’ wealth continues to rise regardless, thanks to asset inflation. Rather than expanding the economic pie, green ideology generally favours what is labelled ‘de-growth’, an alarmist outlook based on assumptions about the environment that are often exaggerated or plainly untrue. This quest to reduce carbon emissions at all costs limits the scope for higher-wage jobs, even in traditionally prosperous countries like Germany. After all, skilled jobs, notably in manufacturing, depend heavily on reliable and affordable energy. This assault on the middle class is already evident in ultra-green California and Germany. In California, climate-centred regulations have helped chase away many blue-collar jobs, with ultra-green policies creating what attorney Jennifer Hernandez has labelled the ‘Green Jim Crow’. This draconian policy agenda essentially bans new housing construction on the urban fringe, while wiping out natural gas – frogmarching citizens to an all-electric future which will be both high cost and based on an inconceivable increase in grid capacity. Indeed, as Deutsche Bank’s Eric Heymann has noted, massive reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions can only come at the cost of declining middle-class standards of living, even in countries that were hitherto widely prosperous. To achieve this reversal, Heymann suggests, ‘a certain degree of eco-dictatorship will be necessary’. In a similar vein, environmental scientists at Leeds University in the UK are now proposing ‘Second World War-style rationing of petrol, household energy and meat’ to fight climate change. Other climate clerics have proposed such dietary strictures as going all-vegan and even eating insects – the new religion’s equivalent of Catholics’ meatless Fridays. In contrast, the upper echelons of society – like the medieval nobility and clergy before them – will hardly feel the difference. ‘Net Zero’ and its effects won’t stop the higher-ups from riding around on private jets, acquiring massive estates and yachts or even shooting their girlfriends into outer space. Indeed, for some, green ideology provides an opportunity, as the uber-wealthy capitalise on subsidies for wind, solar and electric cars. After all, central to Elon Musk’s megafortune is his clever bet on green incentives through his EV giant, Tesla. To placate the struggling masses, there has been a steady move in Europe to expand state support. Meanwhile, in America, oligarchs including Musk have argued for a guaranteed ‘universal basic income’, in a post-industrial version of what Marx derided as the ‘proletarian alms bag’. This suggests that the once-ambitious middle-class could be reduced to a modern version of the Roman plebs, who survived by the willingness of the senate and later the imperial regime to provide ‘bread and circuses’. Accordingly, the Wall Street-friendly Republicans, eager to quell discontent about these growing class divides, are increasingly looking at transfer payments as a way to keep the commoners satisfied, or at least to stop them from brandishing pitchforks.   https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/03/03/a-neo-feudal-war-on-the-people/ By JOEL KOTKIN An author should be pleased to see his thesis bolstered by events. Yet since writing The Coming of Neo-Feudalism in 2020, I have not found any joy in the continued growth of the West’s class divides, as wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in ever fewer hands. The good news is that the working and middle classes are not yet out for the count, and are showing welcome signs of pushback against both state and corporate power. Overall, though, the trends remain sobering. Despite a concerted media attempt, particularly in the United States, to spin things in favour of the status quo, inflation continues to outpace incomes, even more so in Europe, Canada, Australia and Britain. Household debt in the US is higher than at any time since 2008, a problem particularly marked among Millennials. In the US, the ratio between savings and credit-card debt is at its worst in 12 years. Nearly two-thirds of Americans feel their economic prospects have diminished over the past two years. Housing purchases are suffering huge declines as costs have reached the highest levels since 2007, and that’s before the onset of what many predict could be a serious recession. Overall, in the six months from June, American households lost a remarkable $2.3 trillion in value, according to Redfin. Some of this can be traced to the pandemic. Industries like hospitality were hit especially hard, as were all manner of small businesses. As late as April 2022, more than two years after the pandemic began, two-thirds of American small businesses were still struggling. By December 2022, four in 10 still could not pay their rent, with hundreds of thousands closing down in the first year of lockdown. Schoolchildren, particularly from the poor and working class, have suffered both from lost learning and social isolation. The pandemic and its aftermath also expanded an already evident class divide. With ever fewer middle-class neighbourhoods, Americans have become increasingly economically segregated. But two classes have benefited. One was the government clerisy, a class of professional bureaucrats who gained and exercised a level of power unprecedented in peacetime. This power will not willingly be surrendered, with many viewing lockdowns as a test run for addressing climate change. The other beneficiaries can be found among the tech giants and Wall Street. Tech firms have benefited from what leftist author Naomi Klein calls the ‘Screen New Deal’, an effort to create a ‘permanent – and highly profitable – no-touch future’. Tech behemoths Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google enjoyed record-breaking profits amid the first four months of lockdown disruption, adding more than $250 billion dollars to their combined valuation by the end of July 2020. The end of the pandemic has shaken up the tech economy, to be sure, driving massive layoffs and plummeting valuations. Yet none of this threatens the oligarchy’s grip on virtually every critical aspect of technology. The tech of the future – AI, cloud services and underwater fibre-optic cables – is almost totally in the control of oligarchic hands, or in the hands of Chinese firms. The once proudly individualistic culture of ‘garage startups’ is now dominated by corporate giants led by the richest people on the planet. The key issue is property. The changing class dynamics are reflected by patterns of land ownership. House prices have grown three times faster than household income over the past two decades, as the OECD noted in 2019. In this new order, writes economist Thomas Piketty, ‘inherited wealth will make a comeback’. In France, inheritance as a share of GDP grew from roughly four per cent in 1950 to 15 per cent in 2010. Millennials who received bequests inherited more money than many workers make in a lifetime. The growing importance of inherited assets is even more pronounced in Germany, Britain and the US. These trends have been exacerbated by a climate-driven housing policy that seeks to pack people into dense urban areas. Such policies are reversing 75 years of expanding property ownership in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia as well as other high-income countries. Property ownership, widely seen as key to middle-class status, is morphing into a rich man’s game. In the decade from 2010, the proportion of real-estate wealth in the US held by middle-class and working-class owners fell substantially, while that controlled by the wealthy grew from 28 per cent to 43 per cent. In this period, high-income households enjoyed 71 per cent of all gains from housing wealth, while the shares of middle- and lower-income families declined precipitously. For many, especially the young, the chance of ever owning a home seems remote. This is bad news for inequality. In 2019, homes accounted for roughly two-thirds of the wealth of middle-income Americans, with homeowners enjoying a median net worth roughly 80 times that of renters, according to the Census Bureau. Yet large financial institutions, like the UK’s Lloyds Bank and its American counterparts, are today working overtime to buy up the dwindling supply of single-family homes. In a stark illustration of the generations’ changing prospects, only a third of UK Millennials owned a home in 2018, compared with almost two-thirds of Baby Boomers at the same age. The middle class is also under pressure from green ideology. Perhaps the once aspirational middle orders will resign themselves to renting – a future where they will ‘own nothing and be happy’, as the gnomes of Davos suggest. Maybe so, at least with sufficient drugs and videogames. But as the younger generations age, they won’t be able to fall back on their own assets, and instead will have to rely on the state. Nor can they count on a reliably growing economy, the traditional engine of upward mobility. Today’s green theology, adopted by both the bureaucratic clerisy and oligarchic elite, has little room for the robust economic growth that might sustain a comfortable middle class. Meanwhile, the elites’ wealth continues to rise regardless, thanks to asset inflation. In the US, recent impressive job-growth numbers came predominantly in lower-wage service professions like restaurants and hospitality. In the past three months, almost two-thirds of all new jobs occurred in historically low-paying sectors. Rather than expanding the economic pie, green ideology generally favours what is labelled ‘de-growth’, an alarmist outlook based on assumptions about the environment that are often exaggerated or plainly untrue. This quest to reduce carbon emissions at all costs limits the scope for higher-wage jobs, even in traditionally prosperous countries like Germany. After all, skilled jobs, notably in manufacturing, depend heavily on reliable and affordable energy. Well-funded green advocacy groups are a particularly damaging influence. As energy commentator Robert Bryce has shown, green NGOs received well over four times as much revenue in 2021 as those NGOs promoting nuclear energy or fossil fuels. These groups are also now openly paying ‘journalists’ at places like the Associated Press and NPR – outfits which, surprisingly, prefer climate-change fear-mongering to critical thinking. These reporter-acolytes consistently project a nightmare future of food shortages, devastated coastlines, endless droughts and irreversible poverty. Amid such alarmist coverage, as many as 56 per cent of young people worldwide believe that ‘humanity is doomed’, according to a recent survey in Lancet Planetary Health. This catastrophism and embrace of austerity reflects a worldview that is best described as ‘eco-medievalist’, in which the lower classes will be expected to make sacrifices. They will be unable not only to buy homes, but also to own cars, especially electric cars, which are affordable only to the rich. As part of a green agenda, some cities are even eyeing policies to restrict the use of cars outside of one’s immediate neighbourhood, as well as making parking ever more difficult. This assault on the middle class is already evident in ultra-green California and Germany. In California, climate-centred regulations have helped chase away many blue-collar jobs, with ultra-green policies creating what attorney Jennifer Hernandez has labelled the ‘Green Jim Crow’. This draconian policy agenda essentially bans new housing construction on the urban fringe, while wiping out natural gas – frogmarching citizens to an all-electric future which will be both high cost and based on an inconceivable increase in grid capacity. Indeed, as Deutsche Bank’s Eric Heymann has noted, massive reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions can only come at the cost of declining middle-class standards of living, even in countries that were hitherto widely prosperous. To achieve this reversal, Heymann suggests, ‘a certain degree of eco-dictatorship will be necessary’. In a similar vein, environmental scientists at Leeds University in the UK are now proposing ‘Second World War-style rationing of petrol, household energy and meat’ to fight climate change. Other climate clerics have proposed such dietary strictures as going all-vegan and even eating insects – the new religion’s equivalent of Catholics’ meatless Fridays. In contrast, the upper echelons of society – like the medieval nobility and clergy before them – will hardly feel the difference. ‘Net Zero’ and its effects won’t stop the higher-ups from riding around on private jets, acquiring massive estates and yachts or even shooting their girlfriends into outer space. Indeed, for some, green ideology provides an opportunity, as the uber-wealthy capitalise on subsidies for wind, solar and electric cars. After all, central to Elon Musk’s megafortune is his clever bet on green incentives through his EV giant, Tesla. To placate the struggling masses, there has been a steady move in Europe to expand state support. Meanwhile, in America, oligarchs including Musk have argued for a guaranteed ‘universal basic income’, in a post-industrial version of what Marx derided as the ‘proletarian alms bag’. This suggests that the once-ambitious middle-class could be reduced to a modern version of the Roman plebs, who survived by the willingness of the senate and later the imperial regime to provide ‘bread and circuses’. Accordingly, the Wall Street-friendly Republicans, eager to quell discontent about these growing class divides, are increasingly looking at transfer payments as a way to keep the commoners satisfied, or at least to stop them from brandishing pitchforks. Faced with the prospect of gradual extinction, will the middle class rebel? In Europe, farmers, suburbanites and small-business people are pushing back against policies that threaten their livelihoods. In the US, Gallup notes that public approval for key institutions – congress, the universities, large corporations – is at a historic low. Similarly dismal readings can be found in Europe. Overall, the working and middle classes are losing faith, particularly the young. As political scientist Yascha Mounk found in 2018, while over two-thirds of older Americans consider it ‘essential’ to live in a democracy, only one in three Millennials feels the same. European youths express similar dissatisfaction. To be sure, such rampant distrust of institutions like the media can be corrosive to a society, but a healthy measure of scepticism, when accompanied by a willingness to speak out, also represents the first step in challenging the powerful. What’s more, the flight from big cities in the 21st century, which accelerated post-pandemic, could hamper elites’ control over daily life. When people can live and work where they prefer, they have a stronger sense of independence and agency, finding themselves more invested in their local communities. The current surge in new grassroots startups, many located on the urban fringe, also poses an intrinsic challenge to the power of Wall Street and corporate hegemons. Other expressions of dissent may also include labour unrest, as America’s trade unions attempt to reverse a decades-long decline. In the past year, strikes have targeted America’s universities, companies such as Amazon and even the media, including the New York Times. If the mainstream left could only detach itself from extreme environmentalism, it would see in these developments a great opportunity. Indeed, whether coming from the right or left, resistance to centralised power is best framed in economic terms, such as antitrust measures and exercising congressional control over Big Tech. It is here that populist conservatives and progressives can find common ground. Ultimately, as we are reminded every day by the war in Ukraine, humans will never readily submit to arbitrary control. Just as feudalism gave way to the Renaissance and the subsequent growth of democracy, and the fall of the Soviet empire birthed free nations on its periphery, today’s working and middle classes are still agitating for a vibrant democratic economy. Ultimately, their ability to alter current conditions rests with restoring the spirit that overcame the first feudal era. Joel Kotkin is a spiked columnist, the presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Urban Reform Institute. His latest book, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism, is out now. Follow him on Twitter: @joelkotkin

STUDY: AP Pushes Woke Terms Across 64 Climate Stories After $8M Grant from Leftist Orgs

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/joseph-vazquez/2023/05/22/study-ap-pushes-woke-terms-across-64-climate-stories-after By Joseph Vazquez and Luis Cornelio The Associated Press has been running wild with leftist climate change propaganda while being paid millions by eco-extremist organizations. And yet AP still has the audacity to pretend it’s engaging in objective reporting. MRC Business analysts found that from Feb. 15, 2022 through Feb. 15, 2023, The Associated Press (AP) pushed climate change alarmism and promoted woke environmental, social, governance (ESG) efforts across 64 climate-related stories after the legacy outlet received an $8 million grant from leftist nonprofit organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation, Quadrivium (the activist organization of News Corp. Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch’s estranged son and climate activist James Murdoch), the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation (Walmart) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. AP announced Feb. 15, 2022, that it would “significantly expand its climate coverage” with the goal to “infuse” the media landscape with climate journalism backed solely by private interest groups. AP called the new development a “sweeping climate journalism initiative” and claimed in its press release that it would retain “complete editorial control of all content.” AP also claims on its “About Us” page that it is in the business of “unbiased news,” which is little more than a pathetic joke. The so-called “journalism” AP has been doing on climate involves behaving like the de facto mouthpiece for its major left-wing donors who have an obsession with pushing apocalyptic climate narratives on the internet. AP promoted the sentiment of its now-former Vice President Brian Carovillano to justify the potential conflict of interest in receiving the $8 million climate reporting grant from the left-wing groups in a Feb. 16, 2022, article. AP summarized Carovillano’s claim that “AP accepts money to cover certain areas but without strings attached; the funders have no influence on the stories that are done.” Carovillano, in this particular case, called the activist investment a “‘mutually beneficial arrangement.’” AP said in summary of Carovillano’s views that the outlet just had to get used “to the idea that funders weren’t just being generous; they had their own goals to achieve.” But having groups with leftist political agendas finance a news outlet’s climate reporting is like having Big Pharma finance a news outlet’s reporting on drugs. This conflict was apparently lost on AP leadership. “The AP is supposed to be a newswire service, reporting hard news,” Legal Senior Policy Fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute Steve Milloy told MRC Business. “But it has deteriorated into a climate propaganda outfit for left-wing foundations. The AP routinely reports just one side of any climate story. If it lets its readers know there is another side, that only occurs via bogus ‘fact-check’ articles that are intended for use by climate activists to get other outlets to censor climate skeptics.” He continued: “The AP imagines that its corruption of the news is excused because it discloses on its website that it is being paid to report one-side of every climate story. But its stories are run by other media outlets who don’t make the necessary disclosures.” Climate Depot founder Marc Morano also ripped apart AP’s unashamed partnership with left-wing groups in comments to MRC Business: The media is not only ideology in sync with the climate agenda of our government, international organizations, academia, and the billionaire class, but they are also quite literally being paid to promote the climate scare. AP has received millions from ‘philanthropic grants’ to toss out all objectivity and balance in their reporting. The AP and the corporate media engage in paid press release journalism. The media has zero obligation to serve as watchdogs over government claims or policies and instead regurgitate the approved messaging of their paymasters. Despite AP’s alleged commitment to “unbiased and fact-based” reporting, it consistently spouted climate change propaganda. Leftist buzzwords and terms on climate issues appeared across the 64 climate-related articles researched, which framed the stories in a way that made the issue appear apocalyptic. MRC Business tallied the words in accordance with how many times each term appeared across the articles researched. The term “Climate Change” itself appeared a whopping 212 times. “Warming” and “Global Warming” appeared 140 times collectively. “Extreme(s)” emerged 32 times and “Disaster(s)” and “Climate Disaster” appeared a collective 30 times. One Dec. 9, 2022 AP story was headlined: “New abnormal: Climate disaster damage ‘down’ to $268 billion.” AP used a couple of other terms to frame its climate reporting in a way favorable to the left’s narrative: “death sentence,” “net zero,” and “zero.” The term “death sentence” appeared three times. In one example, AP ran a Feb. 14, 2023, climate change story regurgitating the eco ramblings of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. AP piggy-backed off Guterres to preach end-of-the-world alarmism: “He warned the Earth is more likely on a path to warming that amounts to ‘a death sentence’ for countries vulnerable to that rise, including many small island nations.” “Net zero” and/or “zero” popped up 10 times in reference to the unrealistic goal of reaching zero climate emissions. But as Hoover Institution visiting fellow Bjorn Lomborg pointed out in 2021, such goals are meaningless. Using America as an example, Bjorn stated that if all presidents for the next 70 years followed Biden in cutting emissions, “it will reduce temperatures trivially.” Lomborg said the reduction would only be a meaningless “0.07° Fahrenheit. And this is through the UN climate model. So, it’s going to be very hard. It’s going to be very costly. It’ll have virtually no impact.” In an Oct. 6, 2022, op-ed, Lomborg noted that “the climate policy goal of achieving ‘net-zero’ CO2 emissions brings crippling economic pain.” This was apparently lost on AP, which mindlessly praised a month after Lomborg’s op-ed that “[i]f all human emissions of heat-trapping gases were to stop today, Earth’s temperature would continue to rise for a few decades but would eventually stabilize, climate scientists say.” Of course, AP didn’t mention the economic impacts of just dropping so-called “emissions” cold turkey in its piece. But it’s easy to turn climate change into a bogeyman for a news outlet if that outlet is getting paid millions to do so by special interest groups dedicated to woke, leftist causes. Under “Climate Questions,” AP dedicated a whole series trying to push the doom and gloom effects of man-made climate change on planet Earth while suppressing dissent that slams against the leftist narrative. AP repeatedly laced climate alarmism throughout its articles. For instance, one Nov. 6, 2022, piece in the AP “Climate Questions” section, waved around propaganda by the incessant climate doom mongering Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.) In the piece AP raved how the IPCC “gave a damning assessment of where the world is headed if more isn’t done to curb global warming.” Another piece was headlined: “Climate Questions: Is it too late to stop climate change?” A February 14, 2023, article regurgitated leftist talking points that rising sea levels are a potential “death sentence” for Bangladesh, China, India and the Netherlands: “‘Our world is hurtling past the 1.5-degree warming limit that a livable future requires, and with present policies, is careening towards 2.8 degrees — a death sentence for vulnerable countries,’” claimed UN Secretary-General Guterres. Another AP article regurgitating IPCC propaganda from Feb. 28, 2022, read: There is much for the world to fear in Monday’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which bluntly states that the Great Barrier Reef is in crisis and suffering grave impacts from climate change. AP science writer Seth Borenstein wrote a Feb. 28, 2022, propaganda piece riddled with climate panic. “Deadly with extreme weather now, climate change is about to get so much worse,” Borenstein claimed in his lede in reference to an IPCC climate report. “It is likely going to make the world sicker, hungrier, poorer, gloomier and way more dangerous in the next 18 years with an ‘unavoidable’ increase in risks, a new United Nations science report says.”This is typical of Borenstein’s brand as a so-called “science writer.” Milloy rebuked in comments to MRC Business that “Borenstein is notable in his admitted disdain for opponents of the radical climate agenda.” Borenstein’s framing was essentially a regurgitation of eco-political spin spewed by Guterres. “‘Today’s IPCC report is an atlas of human suffering and a damning indictment of failed climate leadership,’ said Guterres. ‘With fact upon fact, this report reveals how people and the planet are getting clobbered by climate change.’” AP’s Leftist Godfathers AP’s skewed reporting preaching end-of-the-world climate narratives should come as no surprise given the leftist bent of the organizations that fund it. The Rockefeller Foundation’s history in supporting causes fixated on overpopulation is a case in point why AP’s monetary tie to the organization is extremely problematic. One Jan. 5, 2022, Rockefeller Archive blog ridiculously stated that “Issues of family planning and concerns over population growth have long interested the Rockefeller family and their philanthropies. But deciding how to give funding, and to which aspects of the ‘population problem,’ has not always come easily.” The article included a 1967 statement doom mongering about overpopulation from late Rockefeller Foundation president J. George Harrar: It is doubtful whether there is any problem in the world more threatening in its implications than uncontrolled population growth. Its effects are already, either directly or indirectly, touching the lives of almost every man, woman, and child. MRC Business previously reported in October 2021 how Murdoch in particular was already heavily invested in a climate reporting hub at AP. MRC Business analyzed that Murdoch’s Quadrivium gave a whopping $14,250,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) between 2013 and 2019. EDF is a left-wing “nonprofit environmental group known for its advocacy for public policies concerning global warming and a left-wing political agenda,” according to Influence Watch. EDF held a string of events in 2020 exploiting the Marxist Black Lives Matter protests and riots. The riots caused at least $2 billion in damages in the “days and weeks following the May 25 police killing of George Floyd,” according to the Daily Mail. The organization tried to twist how “[c]urrent demands for racial justice have put the spotlight on environmental racism.” EDF had also panned the U.S. as a “country hobbled by racism” in a 2017 blog post, further suggesting that “we must address civil rights to be able to make true environmental progress.” The organization even reportedly promised to carry on former President Barack Obama’s Green Power Plan agenda and his opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline. Murdoch’s eco-activist wife Kathryn also happens to currently sit on EDF’s Board of Trustees. The Walton Family Foundation’s leftist bonafides are obvious, as evidenced by the organization’s giving, among other things. The organization gave $10 million in grants to left-wing environmentalist groups in 2018 alone, according to Influence Watch. The largest receiver of these grants was none other than the leftist, anti-American EDF. But its leftist activism gets worse. In November 2022, The Heritage Foundation reported that the Walton Family Foundation was a leading sponsor “of Northwest Arkansas (NWA) Equality, an LGBTQ nonprofit based in Fayetteville. The group’s mission is “to provide programs, education, and advocacy to serve, connect, and empower the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community.” As Heritage pointed out, NWA Equality’s “Dickson Divas drag events, for instance, feature drag queen brunches and children’s story times to Arkansas residents.” Meanwhile, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) has been funding AP News since 2017, according to Influence Watch. The partnership that started as a year-long collaboration to “enhance science journalism” turned into a multi-year financial alliance. One of the projects for AP and HHMI’s 2017 collaboration was to supposedly “help readers stay up-to-date on the science community’s latest research so they can make informed decisions on subjects ranging from the environment to public health.” But it’s clear the “informed decisions” on the environment for HHMI involves inundating readers with climate Armageddon agitprop. HHMI isn’t shy about investing heavily to push climate alarmism. In 2018, HHMI dolled out a $1 million grant to Vassar College for the intended purpose of “train[ing] faculty and develop[ing] a science curriculum that will enable ‘clusters’ of students and faculty to engage in the comprehensive study of ‘Grand Challenges,’ such as climate change and public health issues that have a global impact.” [Emphasis added.] In a 2013 edition of the HHMI Bulletin, HHMI fear-mongered over manmade climate change: Eventually—in tens of thousands of years—the planet will absorb the excess gas, but in the meantime we’ll experience extreme heat waves, melting snowpacks, rising sea levels, and drought. This is also concerning given the Institute’s fixation on ESG-related goals. In 2021, HHMI launched a $2 billion, 10-Year investment to promote the woke values of “Diversity, Equity & Inclusion [(DEI)] in Science.” But as York College Professor Erec Smith noted, companies who employ DEI training into their framework aren’t concerned about data or how diverse they are. “‘It’s about a power grab,’” said Smith. He detailed what DEI does in practical terms in comments to journalist John Stossel: “If you ask somebody what they do for a living, somehow that’s racist,’ says Smith. ‘If you learn that, then why would you take a chance? … ‘I’m going to silence myself’ … not talk to Black people.’” Apparently, this kind of nonsensical left-wing activism was worth $2 billion by HHMI. Also clear is that AP didn’t find taking money from a group obsessed with woke, leftist policies like DEI as compromising to its objectivity. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation also takes an extremely left-wing approach to the issue of climate. The organization labeled so-called climate change as “the defining issue of our day” and propped it up as “an urgent global crisis that affects every problem philanthropy seeks to solve, whether it’s improving health, alleviating poverty, reducing famine, promoting peace, or advancing social justice.” But that’s not all. Hewlett’s obsession with climate has translated into hundreds of millions of dollars in activist spending: [I]n 2018, as evidence of climate change and costs in human suffering mount, our board approved the single largest funding commitment made in the foundation’s history, $600 million for our climate initiative from 2018 through 2023. The Hewlett Foundation also happens to have a notorious reputation for being one of unborn baby slaughter mill Planned Parenthood’s biggest financiers. Between 2000 and 2016, the Hewlett Foundation reportedly funneled a whopping $100 million into Planned Parenthood. AP claimed in its “Standards For Working with Outside Groups” webpage that its “core partnership principle is that AP’s journalism will be independent.” It’s unclear who the outlet thinks it’s fooling. MRC Business intern Renata Kiss contributed to this report.

How Covid Paves the Way for Full Climate Emergency Restrictions

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/25/how-covid-paves-the-way-for-full-climate-emergency-restrictions/ BY CHRIS MORRISON Early this week, America celebrated National Margarita Day, a joyous occasion marked by a headline in CNN that ran, ‘Why the climate crisis might be coming for your Margarita.’ Of course, this intelligence-insulting story was some made-up scare about the weather affecting ingredients that went into tequila. Welcome to the Heartland climate conference in Orlando, where debunking this kind of nonsense is the order of the day. Introducing the conference, Heartland president James Taylor noted that since 1995, tequila production had increased six-fold, and since 2018 it had doubled. James Taylor had earlier set the tone for the conference in ‘freedom-loving’ Florida by noting that climate extremists sought a costly and catastrophic transformation of society, justified under the guise of a so-called existential climate crisis. In the name of fighting climate change, activists are driving critically endangered whales to extinction – a major concern in the North Atlantic and blamed on the activities of offshore wind farms, slicing millions of birds and bats each year to death in mid-flight, and blanketing thousands of square miles of pristine lands and shorelines with solar panels and industrial wind farms. In addition, he drew attention to “sending children of colour to deadly and environmentally devastating rare-earth mining pits, spurring skyrocketing energy costs, taking away gas stoves and other basic household goods, all while surrendering American energy sovereignty to China, Venezuela and rogue regimes in the Middle East”. The Margarita theme ran throughout the day. “The world’s gone crazy. They saying things I don’t know how,” said Dr. Patrick Moore, the noted ecologist and one of the founders of Greenpeace. Moore left Greenpeace when it became, in his own words, the enemy of civilisation, “and they started peddling junk science for donations”. Moore noted that the Earth had spent the last 500 million years taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. In large parts of the paleoclimate record, when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were much higher, there was no link between the gas and rising or cooling temperatures. During the last three interglacial periods over 300,000 years, temperature change preceded CO2 rise by 8,000 years. “Every molecule the Earth puts into the atmosphere, it took out in the first place,” he added. The Australian geologist Dr. Ian Plimer is another big fan of the life-giving properties of CO2. He suggested that you could count on the hand of a sawmill worker the number of geologists who believe in human-caused climate change. Plimer takes the long view and notes that we are living in boring climatic times. “Climate change is very normal, most of the time it has been warmer and sea levels have been higher,” he added. Over time, the planet’s atmospheric CO2 level has been declining. “It is not a climate crisis, it is a crisis of common sense.” We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less, he argued. Life on Earth is expanding, he continued, and we are gaining more species than we are losing. We are not in an extinction event, rather a period of normal species turnover. Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen looks to ‘polar amplification’ to provide many of the answers to natural climate change. This involves heat transfers from the tropics, where temperatures remain relatively stable, to the polar regions which show large gains over time. His work leads him to conclude that greenhouse gas warming past certain levels,“remains largely irrelevant”. Lindzen asks how a small change in temperature can imply major climate change? Every aspect of the warming narrative is “faulty”. Alarmists control the budget and provide a simple narrative. “Simplicity is a source of comfort to the scientifically illiterate,” he observes. Activists have learnt from Joseph Goebbels, he says, that a big enough lie becomes the truth. In the climate activist world, inconsistency does not matter, he continued. The Boston Globe recently reported that a number of local hospitals had broken iced pipes, leading the newspaper to conclude that climate change was affecting health care. Lindzen observed that stupidity seemed to affect the best educated, quoting George Orwell’s famous quote about “some ideas so stupid that only an intellectual believes in them”. Marc Morano is a well known American broadcaster and author and has recently written a book titled The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown, a title he noted could be changed to The Great Resist. To Morano, the world changed in March 2020 when democracy was brushed aside in the interest of tackling the Covid pandemic. The Left and climate activists were very impressed, says Morano, as to how much could be done by declaring an emergency. He suggests that the climate debate is no longer in the democratic realm, quoting the World Economic Forum assertion, since deleted, that “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy”, along with the claim that meat will be a “treat”, not a staple. Anything Covid can do, the activists decided, they could do better. In fact, both parties learnt from each other, with the climate experience providing valuable lessons for virus fanatics. Cancelling climate scientists was replicated during the pandemic, with scientists who challenged the pandemic response being cancelled. NASA’s chief scientist Gavin Schmidt called climate sceptics “sociopaths” – dissenting voices over Covid were similarly smeared. Both climate and Covid activists follow ‘the Science’, which of course is ‘settled’ at any point in time according to the approved version du jour. Both climate and lockdown and vaccine enthusiasts cherry pick data to suit the prepared narrative. Both use models, of course, with Professor Neil Ferguson’s spreadsheet even more hopeless than climate crystal balls. But models spread fear, and both sets of scientists/activists want you to panic. In both cases, restrictions on movement, rationing, along with a billionaire-bought mainstream media peddling the only source of ‘truth’, are all good things. Another seminal date for Morano was 2016, with the game-changing election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency. Noted Morano, Big Government, Big Tech and Big Media decided that such a thing could not happen again. Weaponising Covid and the weather installs a permanent crisis, and such narratives help secure “complete control”. Watch this space for more conference reporting. Keen readers can live stream here. Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Bill Gates buys the media: ‘Pumps out tens of millions of dollars annually to pay for positive media’ – Morano’s The Great Reset book excerpt

The following is an excerpt from Chapter 12 of The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown – By Marc Morano Chapter 2 – The Origins of the Great Reset Page 59 – Excerpt:  The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pumps out tens of millions of dollars annually to pay for positive media. Media partnerships and sponsorships essentially buy slick public relations for Gates and his foundations. Gates influences coverage of global health and development issues as a “top 10 donor” to BBC’s Media Action organization. In the United Kingdom, he also funds The Guardian’s Global Development website. And Gates funds NPR’s global-health coverage. He also provides funding to the key “Our World in Data” website that bills itself as providing “daily updated research and data” on the “coronavirus pandemic.” Gates funds world-health coverage on ABC News—with cash grants. Even the New York Times was taken aback by Gates paying ABC News. “ABC News has entered into an unusual financial agreement with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to back a yearlong project investigating global health problems and their potential solutions,” the Times reported in 2010. The paper quoted ABC News admitting that the network “had never accepted a cash grant before.” When the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer was given a $3.5 million Gates Foundation grant to set up a special reporting division “to expand global health coverage,” the funding essentially brought Gates’s vision and philosophy to the reporting. “NewsHour correspondents will travel worldwide to produce forty to fifty documentary-style reports on global health issues” reported Philanthropy News Digest in 2008. Gates’s money did not just buy coverage, it turned “reporters” for PBS into paid lobbyists for Gates’s global-health mission. “The NewsHour will also launch an outreach effort to put the coverage in front of policymakers, scientists, medical professionals, and others in the global health community.” During the height of COVID-19 fears, Gates appeared regularly on NewsHour and could always count on softball questions from his paid crew at PBS. An April 2020 “news-segment” interview with Gates by anchor Judy Woodruff revealed the extent of the journalistic rot at the Gates-funded show. Woodruff opened the interview with Gates by gushing, “One of the best-informed voices is that of businessman and philanthropist Bill Gates. The co-founder of Microsoft has spent the last few decades focused through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on improving global health, including reducing the spread of infectious diseases.” She said, “You were one of the prescient few years ago who said that an infectious disease outbreak was coming that could kill millions of people”—neglecting to mention that warning cries of the possibility of another Spanish flu hitting someday had been ubiquitous in global health since the time of the original Spanish flu. But Woodruff was not finished performing for Gates’s bought-and-paid-for PR. “Well, Bill Gates, we thank you very much for spending the time with us, for talking with us today. Thank you and we wish you and what you are doing at the Foundation the very best,” Woodruff concluded. In response to concerns that the journalistic integrity of PBS NewsHour was being compromised by the millions in Gates funding, communications chief Rob Flynn defended the show by suggesting that “there are not a heck of a lot of things you could touch in global health these days that would not have some kind of Gates tentacle.” BOX: “The Final Solution” Bill Gates appeared on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in April 2020 to discuss the “return to normal” from COVID-19. Gates: And then the final solution—which is a year to two years off—is the vaccine. So we’ve got to go full-speed ahead on all three fronts. Colbert: Just to head off the conspiracy theorists, maybe we shouldn’t call the vaccine “the final solution.” Gates: Good point. Colbert: Maybe just “the best solution.” Gates: (laughing) Yeah, the return-to-normal solution. Investigative journalist James Corbett has explained the stranglehold Gates has on public health. “It comes as no surprise, then, that—far beyond the $250 million that the Gates Foundation has pledged to the ‘fight’ against coronavirus—every aspect of the current coronavirus pandemic involves organizations, groups and individuals with direct ties to Gates funding,” Corbett reported. The Lancet expressed serious concerns about the Gates Foundation’s influence on public health. “Apart from questions over its investments, the Gates Foundation has received little external scrutiny,” The Lancet said in a May 2009 editorial noting Gates’s $3 billion annual spending at the time. The medical journal reported: Last year, Devi Sridhar and Rajaie Batniji reported that the Foundation gave most of its grants to organizations in high-income countries…. Their study shows even more robustly that the grants made by the Foundation do not reflect the burden of disease endured by those in deepest poverty. In an accompanying Comment, Robert Black and colleagues discuss the alarm- ingly poor correlation between the Foundation’s funding and childhood disease priorities. The concern expressed to us by many scientists who have long worked in low-income settings is that important health programs are being distorted by large grants from the Gates Foundation. . . . There is also serious anxiety about the transparency of the Foundation’s operation…. The first guiding principle of the Foundation is that it is “driven by the interests and passions of the Gates family.” An annual letter from Bill Gates summarizes those passions, referring to newspaper articles, books, and chance events that have shaped the Foundation’s strategy. For such a large and influential investor in global health, is such a whimsical governance principle good enough? Gates quite literally rules media, academia, government officials around the world, and the WHO. # … “Control over the Fates of Billions” Fauci has many close ties to both Bill Gates and the WHO, including funding and joint projects. Fauci was chosen to be part of the Leadership Council of the Gates-founded “Decade of Vaccines” project. “The World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced a collaboration to increase coordination across the international vaccine community and create a Global Vaccine Action Plan,” read the 2010 WHO press release. Gates committed $10 billion to the project. And in October 2019 it was announced: “NIH, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation collaborate to develop gene-based HIV treatment.” The Gates Foundation pledged to contribute $100 million to the National Institute of Health to support Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases research into HIV. Gates is a key player in the Great Reset. Klaus Schwab praised Gates in 2008 at the Davos annual meeting: “If in the twenty-second century a book will be written about the entrepreneur of the twenty-first century…. I’m sure that the person who will foremost come to the mind of those historians is certainly Bill Gates.” “Gates’ unimaginable wealth has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health, medical research, and vaccine development. And now that we are presented with the very problem that Gates has been talking about for years, we will soon find that this software developer with no medical training is going to leverage that wealth into control over the fates of billions of people,” investigative journalist James Corbett explained. The World Health Organization, also a key player in the Great Reset, utilized COVID-19 to promote lockdowns and advance the goals of the World Economic Forum. The World Health Organization’s second-largest donor, behind the United States government, is (drumroll, please) . . . the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. According to the 2018 WHO financial report, while the U.S. government’s contribution was in the amount of more than $281 million, the Gates Foundation came in at over $228 million—out of the total $2.2 billion that made up the WHO annual budget. (Gates gave over $324 million to WHO in 2017.) The Gates Foundation contributed more to the WHO than many developed nations. Gates played a key role in the COVID-19 lockdowns, mandates, and vaccines. “Bars and restaurants in most of the country will be closed as we go into this wave. And I think, sadly, that’s appropriate,” Gates told CNN in December 2020. Gates helped push massive coronavirus hysteria and lockdowns as the only solution. In August of 2020, Gates praised China for its strict lockdowns. Gates said that the Chinese “in their typical fairly authoritarian way, they did a very good job of suppressing the virus. There may have been a lot of individual rights that were violated there, but the overall macro effect that they achieved is kind of amazing.” He added that China “kept the virus numbers to very low levels compared to most countries.” Gates also personally praised the most authoritarian COVID lock- downs anywhere on the planet. He lauded Australia’s militarization response as the model for the United States to follow. Gates called for a “very different regimen so all countries can get on top of cases very quickly and be more like Australia than Europe or the U.S. ended up being.” Gates said this in August 2021, as Victoria in Australia moved into its sixth lockdown after just eight cases of COVID were reported. “Bill Gates is no public health expert. He is not a doctor, an epidemiologist or an infectious disease researcher. Yet somehow he has become a central figure in the lives of billions of people, presuming to dictate the medical actions that will be required for the world to go ‘back to normal,” Corbett stated. How did Gates go from a computer geek peddling a mediocre operating system to dictating international public health policy to the adulation of the media? Money, money, money. “Gates has surpassed Rockefeller’s legacy with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation long having eclipsed The Rockefeller Foundation as the largest private foundation in the world, with $46.8 billion of assets on its books that it wields in its stated program areas of global health and development, global growth, and global policy advocacy,” Corbett reported. End excerpt  # Related Links: Checkbook Journalism: Bought & Paid for Climate ‘News’: NPR Announces Facebook’s Zuckerberg & Rockefeller Foundation Will Be funding NPR’s ‘Climate Desk’ # Jimmy Dore on Bill Gates: September 9, 2022: “Bill Gates was a hated billionaire in the late 90s and he was getting pied in the face, right in public people, were throwing pies in his face. And so what he decided to do was take hundreds of millions of dollars and give it to news organizations around the world — invent news training center schools, journalism schools. So with all his money, all those journalism, and all those news outlets, they’re all beholden to him. So that’s why, when if you think he’s a nice guy or a good person — which he’s neither of those things.”  “He’s a monopolist who screws other people out of competition and he’s buying up farmland and he’s the guy who pushed for the COVID lockdowns and the vaccine mandates. He’s an evil oligarch. And the reason why you don’t know that is because he bought the media.” # Related Links:  Via: Tim Hinchliffe of Sociable in Sept 2022: Moderating last week’s “Tackling Disinformation” panel was WEF managing director Adrian Monck, who in recent months has been name-calling critics of the WEF and components of its great reset agenda as white supremacists and anti-Semites engaged in far-right disinformation campaigns.When addressing CNN’s Rachel Smolkin, Monck said that CNN was part of a political war strategy to “own the narrative.” “CNN is both an organization that’s trying to make sense of the world and trying to establish the facts; it’s also part of a political war on who owns the narrative,” he said. According to MintPress News, CNN received $3.6 million in donations from none other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — the same organization that’s been heavily invested in the WHO. The investigation revealed that Gates had also donated a whopping $319 million to many of the biggest and most influential corporate news outlets in the world. Politico: How Bill Gates and partners used their clout to control the global Covid response — with little oversight – September 2022: Four health organizations, working closely together, spent almost $10 billion on responding to Covid across the world. But they lacked the scrutiny of governments, and fell short of their own goals, a POLITICO and WELT investigation found.   Then Covid-19 struck, the governments of the world weren’t prepared. From America to Europe to Asia, they veered from minimizing the threat to closing their borders in ill-fated attempts to quell a viral spread that soon enveloped the world. While the most powerful nations looked inward, four non-governmental global health organizations began making plans for a life-or-death struggle against a virus that would know no boundaries.  What followed was a steady, almost inexorable shift in power from the overwhelmed governments to a group of non-governmental organizations, according to a seven-month investigation by POLITICO journalists based in the U.S. and Europe and the German newspaper WELT. Armed with expertise, bolstered by contacts at the highest levels of Western nations and empowered by well-grooved relationships with drug makers, the four organizations took on roles often played by governments — but without the accountability of governments. POLITICO and WELT examined meeting minutes as well as thousands of pages of financial disclosures and tax documents, which revealed that the groups have spent nearly $10 billion since 2020 — the same amount as the leading U.S. agency charged with fighting Covid abroad. It is one of the first comprehensive accountings of expenditures by global health organizations on the global fight against the pandemic. While nations were still debating the seriousness of the pandemic, the groups identified potential vaccine makers and targeted investments in the development of tests, treatments and shots. And they used their clout with the World Health Organization to help create an ambitious worldwide distribution plan for the dissemination of those Covid tools to needy nations, though it would ultimately fail to live up to its original promises. The four organizations had worked together in the past, and three of them shared a common history. The largest and most powerful was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, one of the largest philanthropies in the world. Then there was Gavi, the global vaccine organization that Gates helped to found to inoculate people in low-income nations, and the Wellcome Trust, a British research foundation with a multibillion dollar endowment that had worked with the Gates Foundation in previous years. Finally, there was the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI, the international vaccine research and development group that Gates and Wellcome both helped to create in 2017. # Watch: Morano on Fox and Friends on Bill Gates private jet & COVID lockdown hypocrisy – ‘Gates is #1 carbon footprint of all celebrity climate activists’ – $30k a month electricity bill at his home Fox and Friends – Fox News Channel –  Broadcast January 10, 2021 Morano: “Bill Gates was listed in 2019 as the number one carbon footprint of all the celebrities. He beat Al Gore, Jennifer Lopez. He beat Bernie Sanders and a bunch of others that have, Harrison Ford. He came out number one, Bill Gates. He has a new book coming out about the climate crisis what we can all do. He spoke to the World Economic Forum and claimed we have to change every aspect of our lives to fight global warming but Bill Gates is not willing to do it. The last estimate in 2010 he paid $30,000 a month in his electricity bill at his home. Since he is now recently bought a 43 million-dollar oceanfront property, not very worried about sea-level rise apparently.” …  “Gates just said we need to continue lockdowns on bars, restaurants, small businesses. Meanwhile, the billionaire class is reaping benefits of lockdowns — his pals from Amazon, Walmart, all other big box stores. What is interesting climate activists are calling for flying only when it is ‘morally justifiable’ as the new normal post-pandemic. Bill Gates is in on that. He is saying, well business travel he expects a 50% reduction. So now if you want to fly commercial, if you’re not Bill Gates or Leonardo DiCaprio or Al Gore, you need to come up with a ‘morally justifiable’ reason. This is what the climate activists are doing. Crushing the airline industry, by boosting private planes. They’re living one way for themselves and imposing whole another set of austerity on the rest of us.” Bill Gates private jet hypocrisy: Seeks to buy ‘world’s largest private jet operator’ – One month before he releases book preaching about climate change & he pushes continued lockdowns UK Daily Mail: “The Microsoft boss’s company Cascade Investment entered the bidding war for British private jet servicing company Signature Aviation Friday Cascade teamed up with Blackstone Group to make a $4.3 billion bid  In February, Gates will release his book ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need’ In it he sets out his plans for how the world can reach zero greenhouse gas emissions in time to prevent a climate crisis This comes months after he published a blog post lecturing the public that climate change ‘could be worse’ than the coronavirus pandemic Signature Aviation handles 1.6 million private jet flights every year A private jet flight emits up to 40 times as much carbon per passenger as regular commercial flights, according to research” Dec 2020: Bill Gates, Worth Nearly $120 Billion, Advocates For Keeping Small Businesses Closed Due To COVID – “Bars and restaurants in most of the country will be closed as we go into this wave. And I think, sadly, that’s appropriate. Flashback Nov. 2020: Bill Gates says more than 50% of business travel will disappear in post-coronavirus world – Gates: “My prediction would be that over 50% of business travel and over 30% of days in the office will go away.” Moving forward, Gates predicted that there will be a “very high threshold” for conducting business trips and there will always be a way to work from home. Get ready: In a declared ‘climate emergency,’ you can’t fly commercial unless it is ‘morally justifiable’ – Activist Holthaus sets rules for the ‘use for luxury aviation emissions in a climate emergency’ Climate Depot’s Morano: “Decimating the Commerical airline industry with endless COVID lockdown policies won’t impact people like Bill Gates, Prince Charles, Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio — They will continue to fly on (and own) private jets & private jet companies. CNBC: Private Jets? Multiple Mansions? Mega-yachts? Not to worry! Billionaires like Bill Gates & Jeff Bezos ‘buy carbon offsets’ Climate activists Bill Gates & Jeff Bezos (& others) fly on private jets to Sun Valley to attend exclusive ‘billionaire summer camp’ The Great Food Reset has arrived: Expect ‘real’ food shortages, Biden declares – Meanwhile, Bill Gates & China buy up U.S. farmland Climate Depot’s Morano: “If the Davos crowd of the World Economic Forum were looking for a better global environment on which to enact their central planning vision of a Great Reset, it would be hard to imagine a more conducive chaotic time than right now.”  See: Watch video: World Economic Forum’s utopian Great Reset vision of 2030 – ‘You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy’ – ‘Whatever you want you’ll rent & it’ll be delivered by drone’ – Meat will be ‘an occasional treat’ .  Morano: “The vision of transforming the world into unelected bureaucrats taking even more control of everyday life, has now all the ingredients to push it along. The last 2 years have seen endless emergency declarations, wars, massive government spending, debt, runaway inflation, supply chain issues, food shortages, no privacy from big-brother style government snooping of your movements, skyrocketing energy prices, chipping away at car and homeownership, climate lockdowns, oppressive censorship and crushing of dissent, limits on freedom of travel, and physical autonomy. The chaos is music to the ears of those who don’t like the idea or the messiness of human freedom. The World Economic Forum’s vision is to crowd us all in cities, they want to have us own nothing, they want to regulate literally every aspect of our lives. Food shortages are a great way to collapse the current system and install a Great Reset.” See: “When there is food on the table there are many problems. When there is no food on the table there is one problem.” — Chinese proverb. Also see:‘Americans May Have to Say Goodbye to Steak & Burgers as Beef Costs Rise’ as inflation soars – Just what the climate activists always wanted! Biden: ‘The weather may be beyond our control — for now’ – Biden joins Bill Gates & China in seeking to control the weather President Joe Biden in Kentucky talking about floods: “It’s not like it’s beyond our control. The weather may be beyond our control for now, but it’s not beyond our control.” Biden, Bill Gates & China now seeking to control the weather! Don’t like the weather & climate?! Pass a law or push a pork barrel spending bill to alter the weather! SCIENCE! Bill Gates’ Savior Complex: Funds Sun-Dimming Plan To Save the Human Race Watch: Morano on Fox and Friends rips efforts to block the sun with geoengineering to stop ‘global warming’ Watch: World Economic Forum touts China’s efforts ‘to control the weather’ with ‘cloud seeding’ to create ’55 billion tons of artificial rain’ – ‘Weather Modification Department’ Fauci: ‘I represent science’ “So it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science, because I represent science,” he said. “That’s dangerous.” Fauci: ‘Attacks On Me, Quite Frankly, Are Attacks On Science’  

For more results click below