The purpose of this website is to consolidate the many websites, videos and news articles pertaining to scientists` concerns over the questionable way that the IPCC and other government funded agencies have portrayed climate change. There is no direct climate scientist input so there is no new information on this website, rather it is just research on existing information and organized into this central location.
For years celebrity environmentalists such as Al Gore and David Suzuki had us believe that humans were the cause of climate change, that we were heating up the earth, that all bad storms are to be blamed on this and eventually this would destroy our climate and ability to live. Below you will find why many scientists and meteoroligists to not believe this.
The structure of the IPCC is set up in such a way to create bias to AGW. Authors and experts who submit research to the IPCC must conform to a
preconceived expectation that AGW is real, IPCC Authors and Experts.
Authors: "...selected by the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureau... from among experts listed by governments and participating organizations...". In other words, only scientists from an accepted list by their government are allowed to submit research to the IPCC.
Review Editors: "... ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration by the author teams, advise Lead Authors on how to handle contentious/controversial issues...". In other words, articles must reflect government views and contentious/controversial issues must be dealt with. Scientific articles that disagree too much with the government and IPCC are subject to some kind of editing.
In 2009 leaked emails from the IPCC and CRU suggest that climate change data and reports are tightly controlled by a small group
of its members and any scientist that questions either is critized and prevented from speaking up. Any Freedom Of Information requests
to make their data public resulted in them deleting their data instead.
Climategate Scandal News
British scientist in climate row admits 'awful' emails
IPCC Caught Behaving Unethically Again
In 2011 leaked emails from the IPCC and CRU suggested that they had not changed their ways from 2009 and were still preventing scientists who did not agree with them from speeking up. Climategate Scandal 2.0 News copy
Climategate Scandal 2.0 News
Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre along with other scientists who analysed the IPCC data found that there was no drastic increase
in average temperature over the past century. Rather, the IPCC calculations were wrong.
Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre
Top graph: Michael Mann's "hockey stick". Bottom graph: Wilson et al 2014
For years the climate alarmists have claimed that their models are accurate How reliable are climate models? This article goes on to explain why you should believe their climate models. However, in February 2016, all their models' accuracies came into question by their own people... In February 2016, a Nature Climate Change article published by IPCC scientists stated, "Fyfe et al.1 showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models pArcticipating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors..." This is what Steve McIntyre and climate scientists have been stating for all these years!!
In 2015 NOAA published an article claiming that the warming hiatus never really existed (Fyfe et al. already contradicted this claim in 2016). Dr. John Bates, a former climate scientist at NOAA, published an article in 2017 explaining how NOAA used data that had not been fully scrutinized for accuracy to make this claim. "In the fall of 2012, the monthly temperature products issued by NCDC were incorrect for 3 months in a row".
Climatologist Dr Richard Keen - Show Me The Data
Ground thermometers have changed over the years. We went from mercury to electronic. Their sheds went from wood to metal to plastic and also changed in size. Weather sheds that were originally located in a country setting were later surrounded by buildings as near-by cities grew. There are many more issues mentioned in the above video to explain why the percieved 1 degree Celsius temperature increase stated by the IPCC might be inaccurate.
For years many scientists have spoken up about their disagreements with the IPCC results. Below are some brief samples of scientists and their concerns with the IPCC:
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever debunks global warming
Freeman Dyson: Theoretical physicist and mathematician on global warming
Dr. Judith Curry's address to the US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing
Meteorologist John Coleman: How the Global Warming Scare Began
Given the IPCC Climategate scandals of 2009 and 2011, here is a small list of scandals from other corporations and governments:
1) Ontario power plant scandal which cost Ontario
tax payers over 1.1 billion dollars.
2) Watergate scandal which saw the Nixon administration harass and spy on activist groups and other politicians. Similar to what the IPCC is doing now.
3) Environmentalist David Suzuki wants scientist and politicians jailed who do not agree with his perspective on global warming. These are comments one would expect from communist China or North Korea, not a democracy like Canada.
4) The Canadian Long Gun Registry was supposed to cost $2 million dollars by the implementing government. "In May 2006, the Auditor-General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, reported that the former Liberal government twice misinformed Parliament about tens of millions of dollars of overspending..." The final bill was over $2 billion dollars. This was either gross incompetance or deliberate deceipt by the government.
5) NBC Caught Lying About Chevrolet Trucks Exploding was a NBC news report from the 1980's about GM pickup trucks exploding in side impact accidents. However, NBC fabricated all the evidence and had to eventually appologize for lying. Sadly, not even news agencies have integrity anymore.
From the 1940's to the 1970's the earth actually cooled a little. This caused some scientists to suggest that we might be heading into another ice age and that this was man made - Popular Technology summary. An interesting fact that the IPCC seems to gloss over.
A December 10, 1976 Science Magazine article predicts a trend towards another northern hemisphere ice age if anthropogenic effects are ignored. This indirectly suggests that industrialization might have the abilility to save us from another ice age.
There's A New Ice Age Coming - A report in the 1970's from a British scientist.
In 1974 the CIA published a working paper to analyse the effects of climate change on world food production and if that would have
any impact on global political stability. Their concern was over the earth cooling and that historical climate changes such as ice ages could
happen within a 200 year window.
CIA Climate Report 1974
Cyclical warming and cooling periods repeating over thousands of years with no uncontrolled excessive warming, consitant with what many climatogists, meteorologsists and other scientists are saying today.
In the 1970's scientists thought they had "evidence" that we were heading towards an ice age. Now, the trend seems to be "evidence" towards global warming. However, given historical trends, it is possible that the earth may actually move towards another ice age in the future and not what the IPCC is predicting.
This would not be the first time that experts were wrong with something. For decades, the experts (doctors, scientists, etc) thought that the cholesterol in eggs was bad for us. A recent AMJCN study found this to be incorrect with "no relationship between egg intake and coronary heart disease incidence was found". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In fact, cholesterol is a vital nutrient and every cell in our bodies needs cholesterol. All our hormones are derived from cholesterol and a shortage of cholesterol would lead to many health problems.
Ironically, CO2 is also a vital nurtient to the earth. All plants breathe CO2 and rely on it to grow. In prehistoric times CO2 levels were about 20x higher than today (yes, over 8,000 ppm) and the earth was lush and green. Today, the earth is very dry with deserts on almost every continent. Increasing CO2 would benefit plant growth such as trees and food crops. The IPCC is reluctant to mention the possible benefits of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
In the early 1900's north american governments thought that the consumption of alcohol was bad for society so they banned it. This was called Prohibition. "After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as rum-running became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally exported to the United States." The same failures are currently occuring in Europe with carbon cap-and-trade.
Experts Clash on Age of Land Bridge Connecting Americas. This is another example of experts not agreeing on the same data. If one group of experts can be wrong, then it is possible for another group of experts (IPCC) to possibly be wrong.
Prior to the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe, some scientists believed in the Steady State theory. Even scientists can believe in one theory for a while prior to some new information being discovered that then makes them realize they were wrong. Finally, after discovering three major flaws (The Flatness Problem, The Horizon Problem, The Monopole Problem) with the Big Bang theory, a 3rd theory was developed in the 1980's called Inflation Theory. Will there be a 4th or 5th theory in the future? Since scientists don't have a closed mind on the subject and are willing to discuss other possibilities, then maybe yes.
Renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking contradicts his own theory on black holes. In 2014 Hawking wrote a paper that contradicts his original paper from 1974 on the properties of black holes.
Recent studies in New Scientist suggest Albert Einstein may have made a few mistakes in some of his theories.
Sabine Hossenfelder who is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, when talking about modern-day physics, states, The problem is loads of wrong predictions from theoretical physicists. If physicists can make wrong predictions then it is reasonable to assume that environmentalists can also make wrong predictions.
For these reasons no scientist or politician should say that the debate is over with climate change. If scientists were as closed-minded about the universe we would still be believing in the Steady State theory or something even more primitive. If two of the greatest scientists can be wrong, then lesser scientists at the IPCC can also be wrong.
Ontario's (Canada) Liberal government has released details of its cap-and-trade program, which is expected to increase the price of gas and homeowners' natural gas bills... is projected to generate $1.9 billion in revenue next year. This government behaviour has already hurt the Ontario economy and will likely get worse. A couple of years ago Ontario shut down its last coal energy plant. Globally as of 2016, the US gets 39% of its energy from coal, Germany over 50% and China probably over 80%. Ontario has lost lots of manufacturing jobs to other nations with more affordable energy.
Every national, state and provincial government that has a cap-and-trade program will be making billions of dollars from this global warming scare.
"Cap-and-trade regulations create overly restrictive policies that increase price uncertainty in the marketplace. The market loses efficiency because of cap-and-trade regulations."
"Global warming policies geared toward economizing our use of fossil fuels impose tremendous economic costs, especially when the positive externalities of economic growth and poverty reduction are not given appropriate consideration. Economic growth and pollution are intertwined in complex ways."
"Rigid requirements to force nations and companies to focus exclusively on reducing negative externalities, while politically popular, may cause more harm than necessary. Carbon-based energy -- i.e., coal, natural gas and oil -- supplies the vast majority of global energy needs. " Financial Post - Cap-and-trade fraud.
Cap and Trade: A Gigantic Scam - "According to James Hansen - the world's leading climate scientist fighting against global warming - in a interview on Democracy Now that cap and trade not only won't reduce emissions, it may actually increase them". Even a pro global warming scientist does not believe cap-and-trade is a good idea.
Ontario Chamber of Commerce urges one-year delay on cap-and-trade plan "The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is urging the provincial government to delay the implementation of its cap-and-trade plan for one year, saying key questions remain unanswered." "The purpose for our calling for us to slow down before we hurry up here is to make sure we understand fully the unintended consequence or at least the cost-benefit analysis, and that ' we answer some of the questions that remain outstanding from the business community,' he said."
How much will people in Ontario be taxed with cap-and-trade? We won't know because No cap-and-trade line on natural gas bills. This tax will be hidden from us, buried in with other expenses. The Ontario government also intends to increase this tax on a regular basis but it will be difficult to clearly see by how much. The government will not be open and transparent about this tax.
Were all scientists on the planet asked for their opinion on the subject? No.
That number comes from an Austalian researcher who looked at just over 10,000 papers discussing climate. He looked for any opinions that stated:
1) Is CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can increase global temperatures?
2) Do humans contribute CO2 to the atmosphere?
If either question was answered "yes" then the paper was considered in favour of man made global warming. However, answering yes to either or both does not mean that human produced CO2 is warming the planet to a dangerous level.
The survey found that 66% of papers did not express an opinion and were excluded. Of the remaining 33%, 97% of those papers answered yes to either or both questions. So, 97% of 33% of scientists think that either CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Not the type of concensus the politicians would have us believe.
Lord Monckton video explaining the source of the 97% misconception.
The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
Authors and experts who submit research to the IPCC must conform to a preconceived expectation that AGW is real, IPCC Authors and Experts, and "...advise Lead Authors on how to handle contentious/controversial issues..." requiring possible ammendments by the authors. Change the research findings to match the expectation, not exactly a consensus.
A climate alarmist article from Skeptical Science states there were several studies done and in each one the concensus was 93% or higher. What we have learned from the two Climate Gates and from former IPCC scientist Judith Curry is that there was a lot of bulling of scientists within the IPCC if they did not agree with their corporate views of global warming. When IPCC scientists who do not agree with these views are stifled how can there possibly be a real consensus?
The National Space Science & Technology Center conducts climate and weather research. They also provide raw satellite data that anyone can download and analyse for themselves.
Looking at satellite data from 1979 to 2015, one can see that 2015 is not the hottest year on record that so many claim. In fact, 2015 ranks 9th for warmest years. The top 10 warmest years in order
are: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2012, 2007, 2014, 2002, 2015, 2009, 2013. 2016 is now the hottest year since satellite data. Note that 2016 is an El Nino year so that naturally drives up temperatures regardless of CO2.
2017 data only covers to July. Chart to be updated again when all data available. Note that there is already a cooling trend in 2017.
From 1979 to July 2017 (38 years) the average temperature increase has been about 0.503 degrees Celsius.
Source Data. Anyone can download this satellite data, put it into a spreadsheet like Excel and create the same graph.
How do these recent temperatures compare to prehistoric temperatures?
These graphs show that recent temperatures have been quite stable when compared to our past. Fluctuations in temperatures are normal and from a global perspective there has been no drastic increase or decrease. The 1 degree Celsius that the alarmist worry about is well within these past global parameters.
If the earth`s warmest temperatures were on average 14 Celsius higher with 8,000 ppm CO2 than today, then from a linear perspective one can assume a 1 degree increase for every 571 ppm CO2. This is a crude mathematical calculation which does not include any feedback mechanisms or other complexities. It is merely to demonstrate that if CO2 were to be blamed for the sole cause of any modern day warming, that we would need a lot more CO2 before seeing any measurable differences in temperatures.
On May 16, 2016 a leaked government document: $7-billion plan seeks to phase out natural gas, according to report "The four-year plan, according to the Globe and Mail, would seek to phase out natural gas for residential heating, used in 76 per cent of Ontario homes, to be replaced by electric and geothermal sources. "
"If you`re switching from gas, it`s going to cost you more. There's no way your electricity bill is going to go down," said Brady Yauch, executive director of the Consumer Policy Institute. "They`ve gone up faster here, on a percentage term for residential home owners, than anywhere else. They're going to continue to go up."
Adding solar panels to a home will be subsidized by the Ontario government. The Ontario government will provide up to $30,000 in tax payers` money towards these installations. This alone will already drive up the cost of electricity as the subsidies increase to pay for these installations and electricity buy-back into the grid.
The Ontario government will provide up to $14,000 in tax payers` money towards electric vehicle purchases. Commercial products should be financially viable on their own merit otherwise they might be a bad idea. If a product is a good idea people will buy it and the price will eventually come down (ie. flat screen TVs). If a product is a bad idea then it will not sell and eventually go away (ie. 3D TVs). Had the government funded 3D TVs, we might have a bunch of TVs that nobody really likes or uses.
This is one of the most agressive yet financially and scientifically blind plans that any government plans to implement. Affordable energy will be gone. The government mentions possible subsidies for the poor (unknown if enough to make up for the increase) which will come from more taxes to the middle class who will also be paying more for energy.
This plan if made into legislation would begin to take effect by 2020. They would do this by first creating a new law, The Climate Change Mitigation and Low Carbon Economy Act. This would "Enshrine in law Ontario`s greenhouse gas reduction targets of 15 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, 37 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050". The new tax will "Formally direct all cap and trade auction proceeds to a new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account that would fund green projects to reduce emissions".
This plan will also negatively affect other industries such as cement production, copper and nickel production, electricity generation, iron and steel production, magnesium production, aluminum production, pulp and paper production, and many more...
Cap-And-Trade Keeps Poor Ontarians Trapped In Energy Poverty "Seen as regressive, carbon pricing systems such as this cap-and-trade program are more likely to impact poor populations, who in fact use less energy than wealthier households."
Rural Ontario 'in crisis' due to high hydro rates, local United Way head says. The article states "...nearly 60,000 residential customers were disconnected in 2015 from hydro services due to non-payment." The unnecessarily expensive hydro production in Ontario is making poor people even poorer and possibly homeless in the future.
Alberta's oilsands emissions cap will cost $250B but do little to cut greenhouse gas, Fraser Institute says "The report estimates Alberta's proposed cap will cost the national economy more than $250 billion in lost production between 2025 and 2040, while reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by a paltry 0.035 per cent."
Ontario and Britain are two locations that have made a big push to wind farms and solar energy while eliminating affordable energy like clean coal. As a result electricity rates have sky-rocketed in these locations. British energy firms charge most for electricity in Europe - why?. "Expensive projects designed to slash our reliance on fossil fuels are disproportionately driving up bills compared to other countries, experts say." This high increase in energy production has also driven out manufacturing to other locations that have affordable energy without making any positive impacts on global CO2 reduction.
Although British Columbia already has a cap-and-trade tax since 2008, B.C. Premier Christy Clark's climate change plan does not raise carbon tax. The reason given was an "obligation to ensure that family affordability is at the forefront of our minds as well as protecting our economy and job creation." At least one politician has come to realize that artificially increasing the costs of energy will effect the financially vulnerable as well as hurt the economy.
Anyone that has lived in Ontario, Canada for 50 or more years knows that manufacturing has been on the decline for the past couple of decades. Although NAFTA initiated this decline, rising energy costs due to poor government decisions (green energy) has driven this decline since about 2004 with electricity rates increasing by up to 375%.
Celebrity environmentalists David Suzuki, Al Gore and Elon Musk have actually made millions of dollars in the green energy business.
As of 2013, David Suzuki privately owns three properties worth 10.31 million dollars in British Columbia along with a a forth property co-owned by several investors including Kootenay Oil Distributors.
David Suzuki has a Ph.D. in zoology and worked in the genetics department at the University of British Columbia. He is an educated and smart person. Although he has a passion for nature he has no formal education or experience as a climate scientist. He is often critical of climate scientists and meteorologists who contradict him on climate issues despite his lack of formal education on the subject.
The David Suzuki Foundation mission is "...is to `protect the diversity of nature and our quality of life, now and for the future" and their vision is "that within a generation, Canadians act on the understanding that we are all interconnected and interdependent with nature`."
"During an interview on the John Oakley Show in Toronto, Suzuki stated that ordinary people fund his foundation and corporations are not as interested in funding it." "President of the conservative Canadian Centre for Policy Studies Joseph C. Ben-Ami, citing this statement in his article "Global Warming Charlatan" notes that the foundation's 2005-2006 annual report  lists 52 corporations, including Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Scotia Capital, Warner Bros., Canon and the Bank of Montreal, amongst its 40,000 donors. Many years ago, before the Foundation implemented its Ethical Gift Acceptance Policy, corporate donors included EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, and ATCO Gas, Alberta's principal distributor of natural gas, and OPG which is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating five fossil fuel-burning generation plants and three nuclear plants". "Between 2000 and 2010, the David Suzuki Foundation has received $44 Million from tax receipted donations".
According to their website, they state "Our understanding of climate change is largely the result of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's most authoritative voice on the topic.". We know from the previous Climate Gate scandals and what some of the IPCC scientists have said about their errors in their climate models that this is no longer true. They go on to state, "The debate is over about whether or not [man made] climate change is real; it is now time to act to solve the problem." They say this despite all the independant scientific reports stating other causes for climate change including IPCC scientists who stated that their climate models were wrong.
David Suzuki and his foundation have made millions of dollars from their environmental businesses.
Pictured above are one of the famous speaking poses of Al Gore along with two of his mansions. One in Nashville, Tenn, the other in Montecito, California.
A 2013 news article found that, "Al Gore grew his net worth by more than $200 million (mostly from Apple Inc. stock) in the last decade making him almost as wealthy as Mitt Romney". "However, the 'Inconvenient Truth' documentary has been pivotal in helping him earn speaking fees averaging $175,000 for an appearance". "Gore recently inherited an undisclosed number of shares of Occidental Petroleum Corp., which are valued at between $500,000 and $1 million".
Al Gore often preaches conservation in the name of the environment but then does not hesitate to live a life of luxury himself.
Al Gore enrolled in Harvard College in 1965, initially planning to major in English and write novels but later deciding to major in government.
Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories, he did not do well in science classes in college and avoided taking math. His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking marijuana. In his junior and senior years, he became more involved with his studies, earning As and Bs. In his senior year, he took a class with oceanographer and global warming theorist Roger Revelle, who sparked Gore's interest in global warming and other environmental issues.
Although Gore has a passion for the environment he too lacks a formal education and training in climate issues. Many climate scientists and meteorologists have found problems with his statements in the Inconvenient Truth movie as noted above. Getting paid about $175,000 per appearance for the climate alarmists and politicians would be hard to give up or admit that he is wrong in any way.
Elon Musk is a business magnate, engineer and inventor.
He is the founder, CEO and CTO of SpaceX; co-founder, CEO and product architect of Tesla Motors; co-founder and chairman of SolarCity, co-chairman of OpenAI; co-founder of Zip2; and founder of X.com which merge with PayPal of Confinity. As of June 2016, he has an estimated net worth of US$12.7 billion, making him the 83rd wealthiest person in the world. Education: Bachelor of Science degree in physics, Bachelor of Science degree in economics.
In the following video in Paris just before the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, Elon Musk spoke to a group of students about climate change and the need for a green house tax known as cap-and-trade.
Some of his key points were:
David Suzuki and Al Gore are millionares due to their political position on the climate. Their opinions are not impartial, they have a financial interest in their message. As electricity and other energy costs increase due to this misguided green energy strategy, David and Al won`t be affected by this due to their wealth where as the middle class and poor will feel it the most.
The Ontario Government has partnered with David Suzuki and Al Gore and all their propaganda.
In this video the girl on the left and other kids state that trees and other vegetation will not grow well and that the earth is sick, which we know is not true from a Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions study. It is a video to instill fear.
Some propaganda quotes from the Ontario Government:
The rate of global warming over the last 50 years is almost double the rate of warming over the last 100 years. Worldwide, 14 of the last 15 years have been the warmest on record. A false claim as shown above with the satellite data and eventually from some of the IPCC scientists like Michael Mann.
Melting ice at the poles has caused global sea levels to rise. They say that both poles are melting but 2015 NASA satellite data shows that the south pole is growing rather than shrinking.
Climate change also affects Indigenous communities, jeopardizing First Nations and Metis ways of life, health, territories and resources. These communities depend on natural ecosystems for food supplies, and on activities such as fishing, hunting, harvesting and trapping for economic opportunities that are now being threatened by a changing climate. No details are provided here but it is to cause general fear and panic anyway. The details are left up to your imagination.
In 2015 - amid increasing evidence of climate change impacts - the global community has concluded that we`ve reached a critical point. Science tells us that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically reduced to avoid a 2 C rise in average global temperatures. If the world does not take strong action within the next decade, we are on track to see a 4 C rise, at which point the damage from climate change would be irreversible. From about 1880 to 2015 we saw a 0.8 Celsius increase. This is a fact. Assuming temperatures were to continue to rise, it would take hundreds of years to increase by 4 degrees Celsius. The last 20 years have actually slowed to 0.1 Celsius as stated by some IPCC scientists.
There is no room for denial: we either act now to reduce carbon emissions and manage the risks posed by the impacts of climate change, or we all lose. The government does not want to discuss this scientifically despite all the scientists that don`t agree with them. They want uninhibited tax revenue from their cap-and-trade scheme through fear of not doing anything. We must do as Big Brother tells us or else...
New Republic: A World At War. "We`re under attack from climate change - and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII." This article equates current energy production to fighting the Nazis and Japanese during WWII. Current energy is affordable and has allowed the working middle class to live in a comfortable home and for the poor to at least have a roof over their heads.
UK Citizens First To Fight Back "Many climate sceptics around the world will have been encouraged by the Brexit vote, as there is so much overlap between the two camps, and environmental and carbon goals under the EU were a key target of the Leave campaigners." Many people are waking up to the propaganda from our governments and the IPCC and are willing to fight back given the chance.
Professor Says College Students Are Learning 'Advocacy, Not Climate Science'. "What I have observed is that students are increasingly being fed climate change advocacy as a surrogate for becoming climate science literate," David Legates, a professor of geography at the University of Delaware
Portland Bans Anti-Climate Change Materials In Schools. "The Portland Public School Board voted earlier this year to ban any classroom materials, including textbooks and other material purchased by the district, that cast doubt on the existence of (AGW) climate change". In other words, any science literature that discusses other possible reasons for climate change will be banned. This is a form of book burning that was seen in Nazi Germany during WWII and information suppression currently seen in communist China.
New York City Council calls for climate change education. This could also lead to the banning of certain science books that don`t agree with the IPCC. New York City Council quoted the National Center for Science Education, an organization that claims to defend science against idealogical inteference, in their report. This means that any science article that conflicts with the ideas of the NCSE will be banned by them.
Image to the right was taken during WWII when the Nazi's burned books that opposed their idealogies, much like some science books being banned from some schools today
Kerry: Climate change as dangerous as terrorism. "WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday that climate change is as dangerous as, if not more, than the threats posed by the Islamic State and other extremist groups."
Another climate alarmist article stating that there will be large spread drought due to AGW. Often Africa gets mentioned as one of the poor nations to be hit the hardest.
Despite all the IPCC doom and gloom predictions of droughts and starvation because of AGW, Africa in recent years is improving and doing very well with their food production. Africa: Continent of Plenty, a 2013 Article from the IEEE,
According to a recent PNAS article Plant responses to increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought severity. This means that the increases in CO2 will help plants better survive any droughts that may come along.
Climatologist Murari Lal of India who studied the Himalayan ice melt for the IPCC stated that, "...However, under the current state of this scenario (the situation has become quite bizarre at the moment and IPCC's credibility is now at stake), I am not interested in being associated with the IPCC process any more or getting involved in political controversy/advocacy."
In February 2016, a Nature Climate Change article published by IPCC scientists stated, "Fyfe et al.1 showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models pArcticipating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors..."
Former IPCC scientist Dr Judith Curry explains the problems that exist within the IPCC and why the supposed scientific consensus on AGW might be fictional.
These are three quick examples of scientists directly involved with IPCC research and found that there were problems with their results. Although each article briefly made the news our governments never like to talk about this and refer to any scientist that discusses this as a climate science denier.
British Columbia carbon tax was implemented July 1, 2008. Many alarmists will state that the tax works as CO2 emisions fell from 66,000+ ktCO2e to 64,000+ by 2014. What they fail to mention is that CO2 levels began falling already in 2004 from 70,000 ktCO2e, 4 years before the carbon tax came into effect. Ironically, from 2011 to 2014 CO2 levels actually increased by about 40% from what it dropped from 2008. British Columbia is also one of the most expensive provinces in Canada to live in.
Sweden's carbon tax was implemented 1991. From 1991 to 2012 CO2 did fall, but after first increasing from 1992 to 1998. Also, CO2 overall was dropping since 1970, long before any carbon tax.
UK's fuel duty tax was implemented 1993. In 2001 they implemented the Climate Change Levy tax. Although the general trend in CO2 emissions has been declining, this decline began around 1979, 14 years before the first carbon tax. During this same time period, the cost of energy in the UK has risen enough that many manufacturing jobs have left for more affordable countries.
Costa Rica`s carbon tax was implemented 1997. Despite the tax, CO2 emissions have been rising steadily since at least 1970 with little change after 1997.
These four regions demonstrate that a carbon tax has little or even no effect on any climate/CO2 trends but has made the cost of living more expensive and difficult for many citizens while driving away many businesses. Example: Toronto company opening U.S. plant because of rising Ontario hydro rates
NASA has a dedicated section to Climate Change on their website at climate.nasa.gov. This section is very pro AGW but they also contradict themselves on almost every point in other parts of their website.
|...Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Shrinking ice sheets||A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change`s (IPCC) 2013 report. NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses|
|The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. CO2||Water vapor is known to be Earth`s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change. Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change|
|Summer temperatures are projected to continue rising, and a reduction of soil moisture, which exacerbates heat waves... More droughts and heat waves||From a quarter to half of Earth`s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide... Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds|
|...So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past several decades. Is the sun to blame?||
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. "One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system ... is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific." Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
The first 4 sections of their climate website: Evidence, Causes, Effects, Scientific Consensus all reference the IPCC. This would help explain why this part of their website contradicts other parts of their website where they do their own research.
It would appear that NASA has two opinions on AGW. The official opinion where the IPCC has a heavy influence on what to say and then the less politically correct opinion where they question the IPCC data but has to be hidden in other parts of their large website.
Barack Obama was the president of the USA for 8 years. This is one of the most influential positions in the world. During his tenure he had a website set up in his name www.barackobama.com. However, this link now redirects to www.ofa.us. A section of this website is dedicated to his version of climate change.
Part of the title, "Climate change is real, man-made, and happening now". This comes from the presumptions of the IPCC however they have never proven that natural climate stopped 120 years ago. History has proven that climate change has been ongoing for thousands of years right up to now.
The first paragraph on his website states, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree: Man-made climate change is a reality." The articles above have already shown that there is no 97% consensus.
Second paragraph, "Every region of the United States is already experiencing the effects of climate change". Of course, since the climate has always changed and is likely still changing then this sentence is redundant other than to cause fear and make people accept new taxes without protest.
Carbon pollution causing climate change is responsible for air that can be unhealthy to breathe, contributing to health risks for many children. Over the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled and climate change is putting those Americans at greater risk of landing in the hospital.
This would have people believe that CO2 is a pollutant that can harm people. What does actual medical science say? "Asthma patients reduce symptoms, improve lung function with shallow breaths, more carbon dioxide"
Their study concluded with:
Among the study`s 120 patients who used the brief, four-week biofeedback therapy to boost their CO2, the researchers found that of 21 clinical indices of pathology more than 80 percent resulted in significant reductions. The researchers saw improvement in asthma symptoms and control, better lung function, reduced oversensitivity of the airways and less use of reliever medication, as well as improvement in physiology and the pathology of the airways.
Further more, a recent medical study found that "Over 33 percent of patients diagnosed with asthma did not have it". This means that the doubling of Americans with asthma is false and the claims made by the Obama/OFA website are completely inaccurate.
This is the difference between what a politician says and real scientific research.
Fourth paragraph, "More than 130 members of Congress still refuse to acknowledge the scientific reality of climate change...". No one denies natual climate change, just most educated people question how much humans can control and affect the climate. Using the term "climate change denier" is just a distraction and lie to cover alarmists` inability to demonstrate AGW from natural climate change. The mere existance of climate change does not prove it is AGW.
Fith paragraph, "OFA supporters aren't letting deniers try to continue a settled debate..." Science is never settled, it is just the best understanding we have of something at that moment but is always subject to new research that can discover a new explanation. Great scientists like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have both demonstrated that science is never settled.
Subsection Don`t let deniers stand in the way, second paragraph, "...despite overwhelming scientific consensus (even 85 percent of eighth graders accept the science at this point)". Given that some american schools are now banning scientific materials that don`t agree with the IPCC it is no surprise that children don`t know any better. Any science article from NASA, National Geographic, Physics.org, Pnas.org, etc. that could suggest another reason for climate change will be banned, "Additionally, materials must make it clear that human activity is responsible for the rapid climate change occurring on our planet".
It is unimaginable that in a democratic society scientific reports that don`t agree with certain people`s views are being banned. This is something that used to only happen in communist countries like China or during WWII with the Nazis.
Image to the right was taken during WWII when the Nazi's burned books that opposed their idealogies, much like some science books being banned from some schools today
For hundreds of years up to the early 1600`s people, politicians and scientists all believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. They believed that the stars and other planets revolved around the Earth. A scientist named Galileo studied astronomy and through his observations concluded that the Earth was not the center and that it revolved around the sun like all the other planets. This was known as Controversy over heliocentrism.
Despite considerable preasure from policitians and the church to denounce his claims and not contradict their beliefs, Galileo stood fast. In 1633 Galileo was ultimately imprisoned for his scientific work.
The moral of this story relates to modern-day climate scientists and meteorologists that are trying to show scientific research that contradicts the teachings of the IPCC and all their followers. 400+ years later and humans are still making the same mistakes of not having an open mind to all science.
Despite proof that CO2 benefits plant life on earth and food crops are growing better, when a University of Alberta vice-president approved a billboard that stated, "beefier barley - climate change will boost Alberta`s barley yield with less water, feeding more cattle", news article, he lost his job over it.
Paris recently made the news for The Paris Agreement signed by over 100 nations. This unified many countries in one mentality regarding climate and economics. With Britain`s recent Brexit vote, the mentality of Paris is showing a darker side. A leaked memo states, "French bankers are plotting to 'actively disrupt' the City (London)..." and "France has boasted to City of London chiefs that it will use Brexit to sabotage the British economy, according to a bombshell leaked memo."
This is how hostile the IPCC followers are when it comes to not co-operating with them. This leaked memo is reminiscent of the leaked IPCC emails of 2009 and 2011, known as the Climate Gate scandals. Is this a group of people that citizens can truly trust?
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: "...one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world`s wealth...". In other words, climate change and carbon taxes are about creating a global economy controlled by the U.N. through the IPCC, neither of which is a democratically elected body. Note: the original source could not be located, instead a reference to a Forbes news article was used.
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking at the Berlin Energy Transition Dialogue in 2017 basically stated that carbon pricing is needed to discourage carbon fuel use (because it is currently better and more affordable than renewables) and to finance renewables research because currently renewable technology is not good enough to be effecient or affordable. This somewhat confirms the above quote.
Given that climate change is more about controlling economies than the environment, one can see how bulling could form out of this.
Why would citizens of democratic countries ever want to give up control of what energy sources they can use or to pay taxes to finance other countries outside of their own? Carbon taxes/credits can be traded amongst countries thereby sending one country`s tax money to another country with either more wind turbines or solar panels. If renewables were better than fossil fuels, countries would have already switched. This means that countries are forced to continue using fossil fuels out of necessity for transporation and industry so the carbon taxes they pay other countries is just to finance inefficient energy sources and create a global redistribution of wealth. In other words, global welfare.
A recent news article, OPINION: Taxing meat unpalatable proposition suggests that meat might be the next CO2 tax victim. For the last several years governments have been able to convince citizens that CO2, a vital nutrient to plants, is a pollutant, so now they are looking at meat as another pollutant that should be taxed.
Since livestock production results in CO2 emmissions and some misleading studies have suggested that red meat might be bad for your health (these studies grouped processed meats with red meats), that it should be taxed like tobacco. Unless people wake up to what is happening, basic living will become increasingly and unnecessarily more expensive.
If people do not speak up before this happens, then the next thing that will be targetted will be agriculture and all other farming. One-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. So, any farming for food produces CO2 and governments appear to be considering taxing everything CO2 related. This will only hurt poor people already struggling to put food on the table.
The below image was taken from a typical climate change report. Notice how most of the graphs start at different years, depending on when the data was favourable for them to start charting.
The source of the chart above comes from globalchange.gov, a website funded by 13 US government agencies. The graphs around the central image explain how measured data is affecting the planet because of CO2. The graphs are based on real data, however the graphs don`t show all the data. To see all the data, you need to look at another document from GlobalChange.gov
|Data for chart l above||Data for chart l above||Data for chart b above|
Notice how much data was hidden in the final climate report that was actually measured and completely changes how the data would be interpreted. Despite politicians` claims that 2016-present are the warmest temperatures on record, actual data shows the 1930`s were much warmer.
Data for chart k above. Source
Chart k above shows a steady increase of USA forest fires and starts at 1980. The above chart with all the data goes back to 1916 and shows how forest fires were much worse from the late 1920`s to the mid 1950`s. A very different narative from today`s politicians.
Telling half the truth is synonymous with lying. Today`s politicians and politically paid climate scientists are only telling us half the truth.
Confess your climate change sins here. The news group NBC has actually set up a climate change website with a confession portal. Climate change hysteria is officially a religion now.
Don`t forget that NBC also faked some news about GM trucks back in the 1980`s where they were sued by GM as a result.
Three of the confession categories are Meat, Energy and Transportation. These are essential to human life in the modern world. First they attacked energy and had us dismantle reliable power plants with interruptible from "green" energy (wind turbines and solar panels). Then they attacked our transportation by replacing affordable long-distance cars with expensive lower-range electric cars. Now they want to take away an essential natural food group (protein) and replace it with a man-made substitute (fake meat).
If you heat your home in the winter or cool your home in the summer heat, they want you to feel guilty; they prefer that you suffer and perhaps risk your health for their cause. If you drive to work and it`s not in an expensive electric car, then you should commute even if the train/bus goes nowhere near your home or work. While fake meat may look real, most plant-based proteins lack some of the 9 essential ammino acids which allow the body to use the protein. If just one ammino acid is missing, the protein becomes useless to absorption.
Religions that are extreme, that alter the truth or can cause harm to people are often thought of as cults. Some examples are Branch Davidians, the Peoples Temple, Heaven`s Gate, etc.. Given the extreme global pervasiveness in the belief of AGW and how they are trying to control people`s lives, AGW could be thought of as a cult movement too.
For mature adults we may be able to laugh at how silly the hysteria has become. However, if you are also a parent, there should be a bit concern as it has been reported that children are becoming stressed at all this hysteria making them think their future is in jeopardy.
For less-than-mature adults, climate alarmism is perhaps a mental illness as seen in the BBC article The harm from worrying about climate change. Some quotes from the article:
If the alarmists continue to destroy reliable power plants and replace them with unreliable green energy devices, this could send society into a preindustrial era, which would be harmful to society. They would be the cause of their own collapse. After 9/11, governments increased security around power plants as terrorists would likely try to destroy key infrastructures. We are now doing it from within by our own society.
A recent 2019 news article disputed the American President`s claims that our climate is not in crisis and presented their version of the scientific facts:
The National Climate Assessment, which was a collaboration of 13 federal agencies and over 300 leading scientists, found that the US economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century because of climate change.
The end of the century is 2100, which is 80+ years from now. This is a prediction and not an observed fact of science. Predictions can and have been wrong before.
According to a special report last year from the UN`s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0 C (1.8 F) of global warming above pre-industrial levels (from 1850-1900)."
The climate has always changed as seen by multiple ice ages and global warming and not mentioned is human caused albedo and how that affects the earth`s climate.
"Climate change is playing an increasing role, amplifying the frequency and intensity of certain types of extreme weather that lead to billion-dollar disasters," said Adam Smith, lead researcher at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information.
A 2014 AMS study An Empirical Relation between U.S. Tornado Activity and Monthly Environmental Parameters found no relationship between tornados and climate change. In 2018 this was confirmed with no major tornadoes in the USA for the entire year. A 2016 AMS study on recent California droughts found that they have not been caused by long-term climate changes.
Earth's temperature is very closely coupled to carbon dioxide, and "even a very small amount of it can have a profound warming impact," said Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University.
The 3 paragraphs above in this section dispute that claim.
Mann had an offer for Moore: "If he wants proof, I`m sure I can raise funds for his one-way trip to Venus."
The reference to Venus is due to its atmosphere being 96% CO2 and an average temperature of 462 C. Not mentioned is that Mars also has an atmosphere of 95% CO2 but a temperature range of 20 C to -63 C. Why the difference? Air pressure. Venus`s atmosphere is 90 times denser than Earth`s and Mars is 1/6 the density. Earth`s atmospheric CO2 concentration is 0.0407%. When you look at the science in its entirety, then Mann`s comment is pointless and actually embarrassing.
News articles often reference science articles but don`t tell all the research, leaving out many facts. Telling only half the truth is similar to lying. Is there fake news? You decide.
Why the deception about CO2 and its effects on climate? The most common and repetitive reason humans deceive other humans is money. CO2 is everywhere from transportation, energy, livestock, agriculture, construction, etc. By turning CO2 into a commodity, governments have given a monetary value to an otherwise natural and meaningless gas. It can be traded (for cap-and-trade points) and taxed.
The United Nations is an unelected global government organization that has ties into almost every country and industry around the world. Its bank is The World Bank (Document). "Based on an agreement between the United Nations and the World Bank in 1981, Development Business became the official source for World Bank Procurement Notices, Contract Awards, and Project Approvals". The World Bank or the World Bank Group is also a sitting observer in the United Nations Development Group. From here you can see how the World Bank tracks each country`s CO2 emissions: Document. From here you can see how the World Bank now tracks CO2 pricing as if it were a commodity: Document.
The IPCC is funded by governments from many countries around the world (an IPCC Trust Fund established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)).
The UN, IPCC and World Bank are financially tied to each other. The UN funds the IPCC which in turn promotes AGW which then allows The World Bank to place a financial price on each country`s CO2 emmissions which then generates revenue from all the Paris Accord countries (as of March 2019, 195 members have signed on). It is a circular hierarchy.
What does the UN want with all this money? According to their Agenda, they administer a global welfare program where rich countries financially support poor countries. How much money do they need? The UN has 17 goals and according to Goal 17, section Data, monitoring and accountability, for 2016 they spent $623 billion on global welfare.
Turning CO2 into a commodity that can be taxed has made for a quick and easy way to get more money from working people. While welfare in itself is not a bad thing, when it is controlled by an unelected political organization like the UN, the people paying this tax have no say in how much they pay or how it is used. This is undemocratic and dangerous. With billions of dollars at stake to be made, this cannot be overlooked.