by W. Manheimer, Sep 19, 2022 in ClimateChangeDispatch
The following excerpt is taken from:
Journal of Sustainable Development; Vol. 15, No. 5; 2022
ISSN 1913-9063 E-ISSN 1913-9071
Published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education
The emphasis on a false climate crisis is becoming a tragedy for modern civilization, which depends on reliable, economic, and environmentally viable energy. [bold, links added]
The windmills, solar panels, and backup batteries have none of these qualities. This falsehood is pushed by a powerful lobby which Bjorn Lomborg has called a climate industrial complex, comprising some scientists, most media, industrialists, and legislators.
It has somehow managed to convince many that CO2 in the atmosphere, a gas necessary for life on earth, one which we exhale with every breath, is an environmental poison. Multiple scientific theories and measurements show that there is no climate crisis.
Radiation forcing calculations by both skeptics and believers show that the carbon dioxide radiation forcing is about 0.3% of the incident radiation, far less than other effects on climate.
Over the period of human civilization, the temperature has oscillated between quite a few warm and cold periods, with many of the warm periods being warmer than today.
During geological times, it and the carbon dioxide levels have been all over the place with no correlation between them.
by J. Corsi, Sep 14 , 2022 in ClimateChangeDispartch
Climate hysterics like to throw around the world “denier” to castigate those who don’t get with the green agenda.
The term is deliberately intended to echo the phrase “Holocaust denier” to those anti-Semites who like to insist that the Holocaust never happened. [bold, links added]
While the comparison is obscene, it’s certainly true that the Holocaust, like the climate agenda, have something in common: They both reflect a blind fanaticism untethered to actual facts.
Climate hysterics demonize carbon dioxide (CO2) much as Hitler stereotyped Jews. They then demonize their critics as “Holocaust deniers” because the psychological link is to demonize critics of the anthropogenic theory as if they were Jew-haters.
However, the term “climate deniers” outside the context of Holocaust denial makes no sense. No rational person would deny that this planet has an atmosphere, weather, and climate.
But honestly, it is climate hysterics who hate their critics, seeing them as “evil,” greedy, hydrocarbon-burning capitalists willing to make Earth’s climate unbearably hot and dangerous for all living things.
by Donna Laframboise, October 28, 2019 in BigPictureNews
Matthew Green is not a naive teenager. He’s a seasoned journalist who has worked in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and who has written a book about a Ugandan warlord. So how do we explain the Reuters story he filed earlier this month, headlined Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action?
Its major theme is that there’s something new going on, that the climate situation is so dire scientists have begun behaving in an extraordinary manner. 400 scientists from 20 countries have broken “with the caution traditionally associated” with their profession, he says. Having previously “shunned overt political debate,” they’ve now discovered “a moral duty” to “defy convention.”
In his 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, biology professor Paul Ehrlich declaredthat “the time of famines” had arrived. The only “hope for survival” was “drastic worldwide measures.” His book was a political treatise that advocated “brutal and heartless decisions” to solve a problem that never did materialize.
The 1972 bestseller, titled A Blueprint for Survival, similarly proclaimed that “a succession of famines, epidemics, social crises and wars” were inevitable if governments didn’t take specific, dramatic actions. Politicians and the public were urged to pay attention since “34 distinguished biologists, ecologists, doctors and economists” had attached their names to that blueprint.
Steinberger’s comments to the contrary, it has been a long time since we’ve had ‘science as usual.’ Here’s a quote from a book published in 1976:
by Dom Armentano, Oct 30, 2019 in ClimateChangeDispatch
Climate change enthusiasts are convinced that man-made global warming poses a near-term environmental disaster. Yet gloom-and-doom forecasts about the fate of the Earth are hardly new, and few have proven accurate.
In 1798 the Rev. Thomas Malthus predicted that mass starvation would strike England in the 19th century because population growth would inevitably overwhelm food production. It didn’t happen.
Or recall the dire predictions by experts in the 1970s that the world was running out of oil and that prices would skyrocket and stay high for decades.
These views were supported by analyses from the CIA and a boatload of geologists who believed in the so-called “peak oil” theory.
But the experts were wrong. Adjusted for inflation, a barrel of crude oil today is cheaper than it was in 1980, which is arguably one of the most pro-consumer developments in recent economic history.
And now we are told that the world is on the brink of environmental disaster due to man-made global warming.
The conventional wisdom, repeated endlessly in the popular press, is that the Earth is heating dangerously because we burn fossil fuels and that this will generate devastating droughts, fires, floods, and rising ocean levels. (The oceans are currently rising by about one-eighth of an inch per year).
by Tim Ball, March 16, 2019 in WUWT
Most people were taken in by the false story of human-caused global warming. We can include all the students participating in the classroom walkout to demand governments stop climate change, organized by 16-year-old Greta Thunberg. Her goal is to keep global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Apparently, she has no idea that the temperature was near or above that level for most of the last 10,000-years in a period known as the Holocene Optimum.
They are taken in by the false claim that a minute amount of human-produced CO2 is effectively controlling the entire atmospheric system since 1950 and causing environmental collapse through global warming. They don’t know that there is an upper limit to the amount that CO2 can increase temperature. They don’t know that the average level of CO2 over the last 250 million years is 1200 ppm. They don’t know that every projection of temperature by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1990 was wrong. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, how did so few, fool so many, to such an extent, for so long?