BEFORE you read this, keep in mind that the 40,000ppm CO2 that you are breathing out, with each breath, will mean that “You’re changing the way a child’s lung functions while a child is growing up. That has lifelong implications. You’re shortening a life because somebody develops a heart attack … or dies of an asthma attack, and those are not reversible.”
So, be careful not to breath out when watching CNN.
By Kristine Marsh ~
— CNN (@CNN) April 13, 2017
CNN tweeted out an article Thursday morning fretting that kids will suffer undue harm if Trump’s EPA budget cut is passed. The long-winded article written by a children’s advocacy group and hosted on CNN’s website, is full of hyperbole and dire warnings backed up by left-wing environmental “experts” that argue the EPA is a life-giving organization crucial to our childrens’ very existence. This flies in the face of actual government watchdog organization findings that show the EPA actually is one of the most wasteful government agencies.
The CNN piece relies heavily on exaggeration and scare tactics. Environmental health experts and professors, warn children will get lead poisoning, go to jail, or get deadly diseases at young ages.
Studies have showed that kids with…
View original post 479 more words
PART 5 – The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con
“by most metrics, extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases.”
By Paul Homewood
There is no doubt that the “extreme weather lie” is one of the most fraudulent aspects of the whole climate scam.
Even the IPCC’s SREX report could not find any evidence that that extreme weather was increasing.
National Geographic’s claim is based on the above graph from Munich Re, showing the number of “global natural disasters”. But how are these defined?
Clearly every single flood, storm and so on is not counted. According to Munich Re themselves:
Taking very small events out of the equation, 750 relevant loss events [in 2016]such as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves were recorded in the Munich Re NatCatSERVICE database.
So what determines a “relevant event”. The answer of course is heavily weighted to economic cost. While this may have relevance to the insurance industry, it has little bearing on climate trends.
As the European Environment Agency explained in their…
View original post 157 more words
PART 4 – Starting your Arctic sea ice extent graph at the century maximum of 1979…
By Paul Homewood
Even their graph of Arctic sea ice extent shows that the ice has stabilised since 2007. They are, of course, hoping that readers will not notice this.
They start their graph in 1979, at the end of a period when the Arctic had been getting colder for three decades.
In Climate, History and the Modern World, HH Lamb wrote (in 1982):
The cooling of the Arctic since 1950-60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the 20thC, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans, but also in the Norwegian-East Greenland Sea….
A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts…
View original post 267 more words
PART 3 – The fake “97% consensus” revered worldwide by the likes of Barack Obama, cooked up by cartoonist and professional climate activist John Cook. Following on from the bogus Doran/Zimmerman study of 2009: http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats
By Paul Homewood
The main cause of global warming? Err, well no actually.
According to the Cook study quoted, only 65 papers found explicitly found that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
I make that 1.6%, not 97%.
Full details are here.
Virtually all scientists accept that man has some effect on climate, even if only through urbanisation. The Cook study is therefore pretty much worthless anyway, as the authors knew before they published it.
But the fact that only 65 papers identified humans as the primary cause is extremely damning to the supposed consensus.
If humans are actually responsible for less than half of recent warming, the whole scare story falls apart.
Prof Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre summed up just how meaningless Cook’s study was:
The [Cook et al.] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities…
View original post 94 more words
PART 2 – Colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food – carbon dioxide (CO2) hysteria…
By Paul Homewood
They fail to explain why global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, at the same time as CO2 emissions were rising rapidly.
They also forget to mention the role that the great ocean cycles played in 20thC warming. The post 1940 cool down coincided with the shift of both PDO and AMO to cold phase.
Similarly post 1980 warming was in large part the result of a return to warm phase for both cycles.
IRRESISTIBLE 5-part dissection by Paul Homewood of the climate according to National Geographic…
By Paul Homewood
h/t Cheshire Red
National Geographic has long lost any scientific credibility on climate change issues. It’s new project, “Seven things to know about climate change”, does nothing to restore it.
In fact, as their graph clearly shows, temperatures have been steadily rising the 19thC, long before CO2 emissions could have made any noticeable difference.
Why is there no mention that the Little Ice Age, culminating in the late 19thC, is known to be probably the coldest period in Earth’s history since the end of the last Ice Age?
They also mention satellite measurements, but strangely forget to state that atmospheric temperatures last year were no higher than in 1998.
Stand by for the “Second Thing We Should Know”!
Plenty of what Westerners know about the Middle Kingdom is more marvellous myth than solid fact. Fitting squarely within that category is the idea peddled by wind worshippers that China is working at a furious pace to carpet itself with millions of these things.
In truth, instead of squandering billions on a technology that was abandoned around the time the rot set in for the Qing Dynasty in the 19th century, China has built a phenomenal capacity in hydro power; and is building nuclear and high-efficiency coal-fired plant in order to bring affordable and reliable power to the masses: at present, China is building a coal-fired plant every other day, with plans to export their electricity to power starved Germans.
Just like everywhere else, the wind industry in China overstated its case; claiming that its costs were far lower than those actually realised; and, conversely, claiming…
View original post 403 more words