Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now." He said that environmental groups use "faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet."
"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years." (Patrick Moore)
A
UN report in September 2013 said that global surface temperatures have not increased for the past 15 years.
David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University once said, "The [computer] models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful." What do these often faulty computer models provide? They provide power, control, and a whole lot of cash, Green cash, via the fear constantly drilled in people's minds that anthropogenic global warming and climate change are something that we humans are responsible for and, if we pay a lot of carbon taxes, engage in carbon swaps, and line the pockets of crony capitalists with grants for expensive and job-killing renewable energy projects, Mother Earth will be safe, the planet will be clean, humans will suffer, and animals will reign supreme.
Reality does not seem to fit the environmentalist dogma
Reality does not seem to fit the environmentalist dogma. Princeton physics professor William Happer said, "It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what computer models predict." It is also important to make the distinction between climate and weather.
During the 20
th century, Sir James Lovelock, in his "Revenge of Gaia," said, "By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic." This Malthusian prediction is laughable except for the fact that people like him have cost humanity trillions of wasted money, unnecessary suffering, fear, delusion, and forced redistribution of wealth. Millionaires and billionaires were created by this hoax and they are still reaping the benefits of an irrational fear created by irresponsible lies and indoctrination from academia and the MSM.
Those who promote the Science of the Green Scam are engaging in social science paraded as "consensus" science deemed "settled" by government bureaucrats and opinionated Hollywood stars. "Consensus" means that you and I agree on a particular issue and it is not necessarily a fact. Real scientists know that real science is not static, it is constantly revised, rigorously tested, retested to disprove the theory, and outside criticism is welcomed in order to augment the theory.
White-coated propagandists
Dr. Charles Krauthammer calls the white-coated scientists who claim to know exactly what will happen 50 years from now "white-coated propagandists." (The Myth of Settled Science, Washington Post, February 20, 2014)
People like Kari Norgaard who compared global warming skepticism to "racism," believes that "cultural resistance" to man-made caused global warming "must be recognized and treated as an aberrant sociological behavior." Dictators treated their critics in very gruesome ways.
Sandra Korn, a Harvard University student in Women's Studies wrote that free speech threatens liberalism and must be destroyed, and professors with dissenting views fired. (Robby Soave, Daily Caller, February 23, 2014) "Let's give up on academic freedom in favor of justice," Korn wrote.
What are some of the results of the inflexible global warming/climate change dogma established by political advocacy? For starters, there is a deliberate corruption of climate science and of good research in general. Researchers/professors tailor their studies and grant-writing based on the expected results of those who are awarding the grants, and to ensure that the results confirm global warming.
Drought in California
Government establishments of Green environmental programs at every level, an outrageous display of power through regulatory agencies, have resulted in man-made disasters such as the drought caused by the water use policy in California's Central Valley where saving a bait fish called the Delta smelt was more important than giving water to thousands of farmers that have produced $45 billion worth of food annually. House Bill 3964 that would have restored water to the area is still held in the Senate by Democrats who have no intention of passing it.
NASA released
images of Folsom lake, north of Sacramento, showing the water level dropping 80% over the past two and half years. Can the unwise release of water in order to make room for potential flooding rain be a possible reason? How can the passing of a $687 million drought plan for immediate relief to drought-stricken communities redress the long-term Democrat water use policy?
The federal government's solution in California's Central Valley is a "relief" package of $2 billion, including an insulting "summer meal plan" for those farmers put out of business by environmental activists. Adding to the potential food shortage, a real drought in South America has forced 142 Brazilian cities to ration water. Brazil is a leading exporter in a number of food categories thus affecting global food supply. The potential fear of starvation will certainly make people "behave."
Science Czar Dr. John Holdren told reporters that "virtually all weather is being impacted by climate change and that droughts were getting more frequent, they're getting longer and they're getting dryer."
Dr. Roy Spencer, former NASA scientist calls Dr. Holdren's statement "pseudo-science." Dr. Spencer said, "The idea that any of the weather we are seeing is in any significant way due to humanity's greenhouse gas emissions verges on irrationality."
Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "the repository of the global warming hoax," said Rush Limbaugh, found that "there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought."
The journal
Nature published a paper in 2012, Vol. 491, pp. 435-438 by J. Sheffield that found "little change in global drought over the past 60 years."
Dr. Spencer believes that weather is affected by energy imbalances "between the solar heated surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above it, and between different geographic regions. On a local basis, those imbalances can be tens or even hundreds of watts per square meter."
The ocean and the atmosphere tend to reduce these imbalances of energy. The climate is affected by such energy imbalances. Dr. Spencer continued, "Our best estimate of how much the climate system has been perturbed from energy imbalance comes from the slow warming of the oceans, which, since the 1950s equates to a 1 part in 1,000 energy imbalance. Now, how exactly can a 1 part in 1,000 energy imbalance lead Holdren to state, 'Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change?' Well, all I can think of is that his statement is not based on science."
EPA's Director Gina McCarthy says that all U.S. goals on climate change "will not have an impact globally. You don't make good, sustainable laws when you make them on unproven sciences."
Dams release waters to flow "naturally" as demanded by environmental NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and the courts, even though such dam-emptying can cause severe water shortages and droughts in the process.
In spite of claims to the contrary, the Dust Bowl was not created by global warming, it was created by a combination of natural drought and agricultural practices.
No matter how we look at issues, global warming is a very profitable enterprise driven by environmental political advocacy. Some droughts in the U.S. are man-made, caused by Democrat-controlled water use policies. "No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." (Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment)
