Confessions of a ‘Greenpeace Dropout’ to the U.S. Senate on climate change

Watts Up With That?

Update: I’m making this a top “sticky post” for a couple of days, new stories will appear below this one.

Our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.

Statementof Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Beforethe Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight

View original post 1,160 more words


BREAKING – Warning to Michael Mann: apologise for your lie or risk facing from me what you’ve done to Steyn

BREAKING via Andrew Bolt Blog :

aaaaa mann Bolt

Normally I do not sue, but this seems to me a special case.

Mann, the climate alarmist who gave the world his dodgy ”hockey stick”, is now suing sceptic Mark Steyn for mocking him and his lawyers have produced deceptive legal documents in his defence.

Mann has published an outright lie that defames me, and should face the same punishment he wishes to mete out on Steyn for mere mockery.

I do not lie and Murdoch does not pay me to do so. Nor has Mann singled out a single “lie” I’m alleged to have committed.

In fact, Mann is so reckless with the facts that his tweet links to an obvious parody Twitter account run by one of my critics, clearly believing that it’s actually mine.

Advice, please?

Warning to Michael Mann: apologise for your lie or risk facing from me what you’ve done to Steyn | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog.

•••

MUST READ also : Steyn et al. versus Mann | Climate Etc.

——————-

UPDATE via Bolt

I have sent Mann the following email:


Dr Mann:

I note your publication of the following defamatory tweet:

image

You have published an outright lie that defames me.

I do not lie and am not paid by Rupert Murdoch to lie. You have not identified in your tweet a single example of an alleged lie, which suggests you simply made up this defamatory claim.

Indeed, you were so reckless with the facts that your tweet links to an obvious parody Twitter account run by one of my critics which you have clearly believed is mine.

Your other link is to the website of a warmist journalist who for years was a Murdoch columnist, too, writing on climate change. Was he, too, paid by “villainous” Rupert Murdoch to “lie to public”?

I’ve since learned that you last year retweeted another defamatory comment: “No other media organisation in any other civilised nation would employ #AndrewBolt as a journalist”.

As it turns out, that, too, is incorrect. I am not only employed by News Corp but by Australia’s Network 10 and Macquarie Radio Network, where I host a weekly television show and co-host a daily radio show respectively. I have also appeared as a commentator on other media outlets, including the state-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Al Jazeera, the BBC and Canadian radio stations. I am very confident I would be able to find work as a journalist in another “civilised nation”.

I note this because repeated defamations under Australia’s law is evidence of malice – and your history of defaming me shows a complete disregard for the facts.

It is appalling that you could be so reckless, so spiteful, so destructive and so ill-informed. I have long doubted the rigor and the conclusions of your work as a climate scientist and often deplored the way you conduct debate, but even I had never before today considered publically calling you a liar.

I demand you delete your tweet and issue a public apology on the same Twitter account within 24 hours. Failure to do so will not only cast doubt on your commitment to truth in debates on global warming, but expose you to legal action.

UPDATE

Mann gives a very grudging “not necessarily” apology for his brazen lie (and follows it up elsewhere with a string of insults):

image

Too late. His mask has slipped. What else has he repeated – whether “science” or personal calumnies – that was false and motivated by spite or self-protection?

Steve McIntyre suggests one more.

UPDATE

Now, how to get Mann to apologise for his “hockey stick” as well?

UPDATE

To help Mark Steyn meet the legal bills in his own legal battle with Mann, please go here and go to the final link.

•••

UPDATE

via WattsUpWithThat

Mann apologizes for defamation (sort of) after lawsuit threat

Posted on February 25, 2014 by 

It’s a “jump the shark” moment for Mann.

As if taking a cue from yesterday’s essay The Merchants of Smear in deciding “enough is enough”, Herald Sun Journalist Andrew Bolt has decided to stand up to him for defamation. He did so in a most professional but firm way.  I repeat what he writes in:

========================================================

Warning to Michael Mann: apologise for your lie or risk facing from me what you’ve done to Steyn

Open and shut case. Michael Mann is a liar:

image

Normally I do not sue, but this seems to me a special case.

Continue reading →


Sea Level Declining In California For 22 Years

Real Science

There has been a big push by the climate liars recently to scare Californians into sea level neurosis

ScreenHunter_384 Feb. 23 16.23

Rising Sea Level Threatens Los Angeles – Truthdig

Satellites show that California sea level has been falling slightly since the start of records in 1992.

ScreenHunter_383 Feb. 23 16.14

View original post


Steyn et al. versus Mann

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Some significant developments in various lawsuits involving Michael Mann

View original post 2,843 more words


Understanding Natural Variability

Real Science

Humans don’t have much control over the climate outside of their living room, so all large scale climate changes are natural variability

This entire climate conversation is a bunch of contrived BS, with idiotic words like “forcing”  We don’t push the climate around, the climate pushes us.

View original post


Carl Sagan Explains Why Barack Obama Tries To Silence Skeptics

Real Science

“The business of skepticism is to be dangerous. Skepticism challenges established institutions. If we teach everybody, including, say, high school students, habits of skeptical thought, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOs, aspirin commercials, and 35,000-year-old channelees. Maybe they’ll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they’ll challenge the opinions of those in power. Then where would we be?”
— Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/archives/skepticism.htm

h/t to Andy Oz

View original post


Cruz to CNN: Global warming not supported by data

CNN Political Ticker

Beaumont, TX (CNN) – Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, questions whether global warming is real, arguing that the “data are not supporting what the advocates are arguing.”

“The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that – that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened,” said Cruz.

View original post 510 more words


15 Questions Why Climate Change Is A Complete Hoax

“When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself.”  Mark Twain

“There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.” Richard Feynman, Letter to Armando Garcia J, December 11, 1985
US educator & physicist (1918 – 1988)

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” 
– Albert Einstein

climate change

No empirical evidence exists proving mankind’s extra carbon dioxide caused slight warming from 1976 to 1998, or whether humanity’s 3% addition to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused, or will cause, significant climate change.

The IPCC has spent upwards of one hundred billion dollars over the past twenty five years on climate research, energy studies and climate policy, and is still yet to identify a human signature in the global temperature record.

The only area where the effect of man-made CO2 has been detected is in the climate models which show, predictably, lots of warming. But models are assertions, not evidence, and the real world is falsifying the models and the assertions — all of them.

‘That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.’ (Bob Carter, Quadrant)

‘Scientifically’, alarmists have failed to make their case. However, ’emotionally’, they have captured the world’s intimate attention.

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”  – Bertrand Russell

It is scepticism that keeps science honest. And given the billions of dollars that are being poured into policies and research on the basis of alarmist model forecasts, people need to be asking a lot of questions about the science.

Here are some questions that sceptics have been waiting for years to receive answers :

  1. Why has there been no global warming for 17 years?
  2. Why have 97% of the climate models failed to foresee this?
  3. Why has Antarctic sea ice been well above normal for more than 2 years?
  4. Why are northern hemispheric winters getting colder?
  5. What makes the present warm period any different from that of the Medieval warm period?
  6. Why is it that CO2 has been suddenly assumed to be the major climate factor and the rest like the sun and oceans are dismissed?
  7. If there is consensus on manmade climate change, then why is there so much controversy over it?
  8. Do you think that it’s not necessary to have sceptics in order for science to progress?
  9. If human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is 3%, how much should we attribute mother nature’s 97% to any ‘change’ of climate?
  10. By how much will the temperature of the globe change if we commit to a 20% reduction of world emissions by 2050?
  11. By how much will a doubling of CO2 increase global temperature?
  12. Why has the rate of sea level rise decelerated since 2004, despite rising CO2?
  13. Why has global ocean heat content, 0-700 metres, failed to rise since 2004?
  14. What evidence would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

*Questions 1-8 via NoTricksZone. (Climatism links added)

•••

UPDATE

15. What is the ideal temperature of the planet and who determines it? And what happens if the ‘ideal’ temperature changes?

H/t to John R. Bolton

•••

See also :

IPCC Failed Climate Models :

Related :

Climatism Trending :


Socialism Masquerading As Environmentalism

If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism
” 
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

green-agenda

Image Source : Green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism | Herald Sun

•••

“Global Warming” has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is an ideology. A religion. Australia’s new Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, “socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.

“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

American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, articulates the motivation behind modern environmentalism. A movement using the threat of environmental disaster to limit the use of energy, shut down economies and advance socialism.

There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

Carbon Chastity

By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post

Friday, May 30, 2008

I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’m a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can’t be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems — from ocean currents to cloud formation — that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

BdufIaXCAAAmOPTYet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,” warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, “is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven’t seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton’s laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming — infinitely more untested, complex and speculative — is a closed issue.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher’s England to Deng’s China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but — even better — in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia’s priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment — carbon chastity — they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

Full Story »

* Article published in 2008, at the height of ‘Global Warming’ hysteria. Six years on, with Global Warming in hiatus now for 17 years, Krauthammer’s message holds perhaps further relevance.

* Links and Image added by Climatism.

•••

UPDATE

Krauthammer on Obama’s “settled science”

The arrogance – the stupidity – of people who claim global warming science is “settled”.

•••

Krauthammer on Global Warming as a Religion and Corruption of the Scientific method.

Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at , February 22, 4.54.22 pm

Debate over climate change gets heated | Fox News Video (3:20)

•••

Irony UPDATE

Heating up: Climate change advocates try to silence Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: “I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier.”

He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in “a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.”

How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer’s column on Friday.

Their response to opinions they disagree with is to suppress the speech.

Full Story

•••

See also :

United Nations :

Science Related :

The Future Of Energy – Nuclear :

Quote Source – The Green Agenda


One Of The Most Impressive Bits Of Data Tampering