Thongchai Thailand

Author Archive

Renewable Energy

Renewable Energy

A Primer for the Twenty-First Century

Bruce Usher, Columbia University Press

Published: January 1, 2019

[LINK TO BOOK]

From wood to coal to oil and gas, the sources of energy on which civilization depends have always changed as technology advances. Now renewables are overtaking fossil fuels, with wind and solar energy becoming cheaper and more competitive every year. Growth in renewable energy will further accelerate as electric vehicles become less expensive than traditional automobiles. Understanding the implications of the energy transition will prepare us for the many changes ahead.

COLUMBIA

 

PART-1: WHAT THE BOOK SAYS (CIRCA 2017-2018)

  1. Renewables are already replacing fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy. This energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables mirrors prior energy transitions in human history. In each case the energy transitions were brought about with advances in technology that yielded a competitive product in the market for energy. We are now going through yet another such energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables.
  2. What we see today (2017/2018) is that in many countries, highly advanced wind and solar power facilities now generate electricity that is price competitive with fossil fuels in the market for energy. The superiority of renewables in the market for energy driving the transition to renewables. Renewables now generate electricity at a price that is more competitive than electricity generated from fossil fuels. The competitive advantages of renewables is driving the transition.
  3. In Texas, wind power accounted for 17% of the electricity generated in 2017 and is forecast to surpass coal by 2019. Great Britain, the cradle of the industrial revolution, crossed a threshold in 2017 when when the country went for a day on April 21 without burning any coal after 400 years of constant use. Even Saudi Arabia, with the world’s most valuable petroleum reserves, is joining the transition by installing some of the world’s largest solar projects.
  4. Wind and solar have become the fastest growing sources of new power generation globally due to constantly improving technology and declining costs to become competitive against coal, oil, and natural gas. Renewable energy will continue to be competitive in the market for energy and increase its market share due to a parallel energy transition in transportation to electric cars.
  5. Energy transitions of the past driven by competition in the market for energy were critically important in the development of modern economies. The next energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables will be critical to avoiding catastrophic climate change.

 

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

bandicam 2020-04-05 13-26-42-100

bandicam 2020-04-05 20-11-37-495

  1. This critical commentary is written in 2020, approximately 3 years after the book was written and a year after it was published – and so far there is no evidence that the author’s bullish assessment of the future of renewables. It is noted that in the text of the book, the author consistently evaluates renewables on power generated rather than power delivered.
  2. The argument against renewables is not high generation cost. That argument is eloquently summarized by Bill Gates in a related post [LINK] where he notes that the issue is intermittency and absence of load balancing. Also, because they must be backed up by fossil fueled power generation because of their unreliability, renewables, in that present form can never actually replace fossil fuels. Bill Gates notes that all the batteries in the world could hold no more than 10 minutes of the world’s power demand.
  3. It is true that energy technologies have evolved by competition in the market for energy. Specifically, they have not evolved by activism of any sort. In this respect the need to push for renewables with climate catastrophe fear based activism implies that the technology is unable to compete in the market for energy.
  4. In that line of argument, the author’s claim that (as of 2017) renewables are competitive in the market for energy is inconsistent with his closing argument that the next energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables is needed to avoid climate catastrophe. This last sentence undoes all the arguments presented by the author that renewables are now competitive in the market for energy and that they will soon take over from fossil fuels. These two positions of he author are inconsistent because each erases the other.
  5. If renewables were competitive in the market for energy there would be no need for the climate catastrophe fear based activism against fossil fuels. Conversely, the need for climate catastrophe fear based activism against fossil fuels shows that the author’s claim to competitiveness in the market for energy is a falsehood.
  6. It is noted that the author is from Columbia University, an educational institution that has morphed into a climate activism organization. Details in related posts [LINK][LINK] .

 

GIBBS-7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Verkhoyansk: This Russian Town Is So Cold, It'll Make You Hate ...

Arctic is having amazing heat wave; Siberia tops record 100 ...

 

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON TEMPERATURE EXTREMES IN VERKHOYANSK, RUSSIA THAT ARE CLAIMED AS EVIDENCE OF THE EXTREME HEAT EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING. THERE ARE MANY SUCH STORIES IN THE POPULAR PRESS. VERKHOYANSK IS ITS LATEST INCARNATION  

 

PART-1: EXAMPLE MEDIA STORY ABOUT VERKHOYANSK TEMPERATURES

 

  1. Verkhoyansk hits a temperatures of minus 67.7C but this year, on June 20, Verkhoyansk made headlines when that afternoon, temperatures reached plus 38C probably the hottest seen above the Arctic Circle since records began. You go out and within minutes you’re covered in sweat. Summers in Verkhoyansk are getting hotter every year. Russia’s meteorological service confirmed the Verkhoyansk weather record on June 30. This summer is nothing extraordinary in light of recent years, when July heat has regularly topped plus 30C.
  2. Russia’s vast Sakha region, where the town lies, is accustomed to extreme temperatures that vary there more than anywhere else on the planet. In Verkhoyansk, the sun shines round the clock for weeks in the summer, and vanishes for months in winter. But for scientists analyzing the trend in Siberia, this year has been extraordinary.
  3. The Copernicus Climate Change Service operates several satellites, said in a statement on July 7 that the Arctic has been warming substantially faster than the rest of the world. Parts of northeastern Siberia had broken the record for the two warmest Junes in 2018 and 2019 by 1C.  But June was not the only month to break temperature records. The first five months of 2020 were 5.3C above normal in Russia, according to Berkeley Earth, which calls it “the largest January-to-May temperature anomaly ever observed in any country’s national average.”
  4. What is unusual in this case is that from December to May, long warmer-than-average anomalies have persisted according to Freja Vamborg, senior scientist at the Copernicus Climate Change Service. She cautioned against viewing Siberia as representative of a global trend, however. Western Siberia is a region that has high variability in temperature. Large temperature anomalies are not unexpected. Yet, the rapid pace of warming has stunned climate scientists. 
  5. In the meantime, some of the apocalyptic warnings appear to be coming true. Raging wildfires are consuming swaths of forest in Sakha, which reported 183 active blazes across the region on July 5 and has deployed aviation to prevent them from engulfing villages and towns.
  6. Vasily Yablokov, the head of the climate program at Greenpeace Russia, says the federal government is not doing enough to help prevent such catastrophes. “We’ve warned that more money is needed for the battle against wildfires but the fires are only the most visible problem. We also have more floods, droughts, and other obvious consequences of the changing climate.

 

 

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

  1. The analysis presented above and in all other works on Verkhoyansk June temperature articles found online assumes and promotes a causal connection between anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and extreme temperatures at Verkhoyansk in June of 2019 such that these alarming temperature shifts serve as motivation to take climate action in the form of reducing and eliminating fossil fuel emissions to attenuate the rate of warming and thereby avoid a climate change crisis implied by temperature extremes in Verkhoyansk.
  2. Here we study the relationship between AGW and Verkhoyansk in terms of the global warming data shown graphically below in Part-3 of this post. The data there are from 1979 to 2020 for calendar months January to June and from 1979 to 2019 for the remaining calendar months. Lower troposphere temperature data are presented for four different regions of the globe. These are (1) GLOBAL, LAND AND OCEAN, (2) GLOBAL LAND ONLY, (3) NORTHERN EXTENT LAND ONLY, AND (4) NORTH POLAR REGION LAND ONLY. Three charts are provided for each region. These are, (1) Temperature, (2) Decadal warming rates, and (3) A comparison of the six calendar months.
  3. The global temperatures provide the AGW context. Here we find nothing special about June in terms of temperature data. However, the more pertinent information is found in the decadal warming rates because the attribution of extreme heat in June to global warming implies a relatively high value of decadal warming rates for June in the decade ending in 2020. Here we find the decadal warming rates in June rising at the end of the time span into 2020 although a stronger rise in decadal warming is seen in the earlier months. In any case, this indication of a rising decadal warming rate in June in global mean temperature is then further investigated by restricting the surface to land and by looking at specific sections of the globe that relate to Verkhoyansk. We find as follows:
  4. (a) When temperatures for global land surface only are studied, the steep rise in decadal warming rate in 2019 seen in global mean temperature is not found,  (b) and when the geographical extent is limited to land surface in the Northern Extent (northern hemisphere north of the tropics), and the North Polar region, the decadal warming curve goes completely flat for the calendar month of June.
  5. These temperature data do not support the assumption by climate scientists and by the media that the Verkhoyansk extreme temperature event in June reported in the media are related to or can be understood in terms of AGW climate change. In fact, the data actually support the contrarian position expressed by Freja Vamborg who is a senior scientist at the Copernicus Climate Change Service. She cautioned against viewing Siberia as representative of a global trend. The data below support that view as they do not provide evidence that global warming had created a spike in warming in June of 2019 and 2020 such that the temperature extremes observed in Verkhoyansk at that time can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming.
  6. It is noted that Verkhoyansk has a history of extreme temperature events both cold (in winter) and hot (in summer) and these events should be understood in terms of weather anomalies the regions is known for and not in terms of anthropogenic global warming. It should also be mentioned that the temperature data used by the media to raise the Verkhoyansk climate crisis alarm was provided to them by the Copernicus Climate Change Service where Freja Vamborg, the Verkhoyansk climate crisis denier, is a climate scientist.

 

PART-3: THE RELEVANT TEMPERATURE DATA

  1. GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE 1979-2020: LAND AND OCEAN   GLOBAL-GIF
  2. DECADAL WARMING TRENDSGLOBAL-DEC-GIF
  3. CALENDAR MONTHS COMPAREDGLOBAL-TRENDS
  4. GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE 1979-2020: LAND ONLY  GLOBAL-LAND-GIF
  5. DECADAL WARMING TRENDSGLOBAL-LAND-DEC-GIF
  6. CALENDAR MONTHS COMPARED: CALENDAR-MONTHS-COMPARED
  7. NORTHERN EXTENT TEMPERATURE 1979-2020: LAND ONLY  NEXT-LAND-GIF
  8. DECADAL WARMING TRENDSNEXT-LAND-DEC-GIF
  9. CALENDAR MONTHS COMPAREDCALENDAR-MONTHS
  10. NORTH POLAR TEMPERATURE 1979-2020: LAND ONLY :  TEMP-GIF
  11. DECADAL WARMING TRENDSDEC-GIF
  12. CALENDAR MONTHS COMPAREDCALENDAR-MONTHS

bandicam 2020-07-14 13-37-21-989

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PNND congratulates António Guterres as new UN Chief ...

 

THE UNITED NATIONS IPCC:  CATASTROPHIC IRREVERSIBLE CLIMATE CHANGE IF WARMING SINCE PRE-INDUSTRIAL EXCEEDS THE CRITICAL VALUE THAT THE IPCC HAS USED CLIMATE MODELS TO DETERMINE.  

 
QUESTION: WHAT DOES PRE-INDUSTRIAL MEAN? IN WHAT YEAR DID AGW HUMAN CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE START?

ANSWER:

  1. Callendar 1938 . It started in 1900 and warmed steadily from 1900 to 1938 with the warming driven by rising CO2 which in turn is attributable to fossil fuel emissions.
  2. Hansen 1988It started in 1950 because in the 30-year period 1950-1980 there is a strong measurable warming rate with 99% probability for human cause.
  3. UNITED NATIONS IPCC 2001: It started in 1750 when the Industrial Revolution kicked in and atmospheric CO2 began to rise.
  4. UNITED NATIONS IPCC 2015: It started in 1850 by when sufficient fossil fuel carbon had entered the atmosphere for a measurable response of temperature to CO2.
  5. NASA 2020 : It started in 1950 because from then the relationship between CO2 and temperature we see in the climate models closely matches the observational data.
  6. Climate Scientist Peter Cox 2018 : It started in the 1970s because it is since then that we see a measurable responsiveness of surface temperature to atmospheric CO2 concentration according to the theory of the greenhouse effect of CO2.

 

QUESTION: HOW MUCH WARMING SINCE PRE-INDUSTRIAL WILL CAUSE A CLIMATE CHANGE TIPPING POINT AND IRREVERSIBLE CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE? 

ANSWER:

  1. UNITED NATIONS IPCC 2001:  Warming must not be allowed to exceed 5C. If we don’t take climate action to reduce and eliminate emissions, the temperature will continue to go up and when it warms 5C above pre-industrial, warming will become irreversible and it will no longer be possible to attenuate warming with climate action.
  2. UNITED NATIONS IPCC 2007:  Warming must not be allowed to exceed 4C. If we don’t take climate action to reduce and eliminate emissions, the temperature will continue to go up and when it warms 4C above pre-industrial, warming will become irreversible and it will no longer be possible to attenuate warming with climate action.
  3. UNITED NATIONS IPCC 2013:  Warming must not be allowed to exceed 3C. If we don’t take climate action to reduce and eliminate emissions, the temperature will continue to go up and when it warms 3C above pre-industrial, warming will become irreversible and it will no longer be possible to attenuate warming with climate action.
  4. UNITED NATIONS IPCC 2015:  Warming must not be allowed to exceed 2C. If we don’t take climate action to reduce and eliminate emissions, the temperature will continue to go up and when it warms 2C above pre-industrial, warming will become irreversible and it will no longer be possible to attenuate warming with climate action.
  5. UNITED NATIONS IPCC 2018:  Warming must not be allowed to exceed 1.5C. If we don’t take climate action to reduce and eliminate emissions, the temperature will continue to go up and when it warms 1.5C above pre-industrial, warming will become irreversible and it will no longer be possible to attenuate warming with climate action.

 

QUESTION: WHAT ABOUT THE INTERNAL VARIABILITY OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM THAT IS BEYOND THE ABILITY OF HUMANS TO CONTROL?

ANSWER Insights from Earth system model initial-condition large ensembles and future prospects, C. Deser, F. Lehner, K. B. Rodgers, T. Ault, T. L. Delworth, P. N. DiNezio, A. Fiore, C. Frankignoul, J. C. Fyfe, D. E. Horton, J. E. Kay, R. Knutti, N. S. Lovenduski, J. Marotzke, K. A. McKinnon, S. Minobe, J. Randerson, J. A. Screen, I. R. Simpson & M. Ting: Nature Climate Change (2020). Abstract: Internal variability in the climate system confounds assessment of human-induced climate change and imposes irreducible limits on the accuracy of climate change projections, especially at regional and decadal scales. A new collection of initial-condition large ensembles (LEs) generated with seven Earth system models under historical and future radiative forcing scenarios provides new insights into uncertainties due to internal variability versus model differences. These data enhance the assessment of climate change risks, including extreme events, and offer a powerful testbed for new methodologies aimed at separating forced signals from internal variability in the observational record. Opportunities and challenges confronting the design and dissemination of future LEs, including increased spatial resolution and model complexity alongside emerging Earth system applications, are discussed.

TRANSLATION: There is an internal variability of the climate system that is beyond the effects of fossil fuel emissions and therefore no assessment can be made of future climate states based only on fossil fuel emissions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

denier-3

POSTS ON CLIMATE DENIAL

  1. CLIMATE DENIAL RESEARCH, A BIBLIOGRAPHY[LINK]
  2. FUNDING THE CLIMATE DENIAL INDUSTRY[LINK]
  3. ANTI FOSSIL FUEL ACTIVISTS WARY OF CLIMATE DENIALISTS[LINK]
  4. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CLIMATE DENIAL[LINK]
  5. EXXON KNEW[LINK]
  6. THE DESMOG BLOG LIST OF DENIERS[LINK]
  7. CLIMATE DENIALISM BUSTED[LINK]

 

denier-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where to Celebrate Fourth of July Across the County | Montgomery ...

THE DESMOG BLOG SITE HAS PUBLISHED A LARGE ALPHABETICALLY  SORTED LIST OF DANGEROUS CLIMATE DENIERS.  THIS POST IS A PRESENTATION OF THE FIRST 40 DENIERS LISTED BY DESMOG PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 50 SELECTED DENIERS FROM THE REST OF THE LIST. THE SELECTION WAS BASED ON MY FAMILIARITY WITH THE DENIERS.  THE INFORMATION ABOUT THESE DENIERS IN THE DESMOG DATABASE IS PRESENTED HERE IN A MORE COMPACT FORMAT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LENGTHY AND REPETITIOUS DIVERGENCE  INTO EVIL MONEY FUNDING OF DENIERS WAS EDITED OUT BUT THEY CAN BE FOUND IN THE SOURCE DOCUMENT AT DESMOG BLOG. THE LINK TO DESMOG APPEARS AT THE END OF THE TEXT.  THE RANDOM CHANGES IN FONT OF THE TEXT IN THIS POST IS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT A  NEW WORDPRESS WEIRDNESS THAT I DON’T UNDERSTAND!

Climate change deniers live in ignorant bliss as seas keep rising ...

 

  1. TONY ABBOTT: EDUCATION: Bachelor of Economics (BEc), University of Sydney. Bachelor of Laws (LLB), University of Sydney. Bachelor of Arts in Politics and Philosophy, Queen’s College, University of Oxford. BACKGROUND: Prime Minister of Australia 2013 – 2015, centre-right Liberal Party and while in power he ended the Rudd Government’s Emissions Trading System.  Ousted as Liberal Party leader by Malcolm Turnbull in 2015 following poor approval ratings. Prior to that Minister for Women, Leader of the House, and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Lost his parliamentary seat in 2019 to a climate activist. Abbott opposed measures to combat climate change and tried to repeal Australia’s carbon tax. Resigned from the shadow cabinet of Malcolm Turnbull in 2009 because of the proposed emissions trading scheme. He gives climate denial lectures to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Institute of Public Affairs, and other climate denial groups and has close ties to influential right-wing thinktanks. QUOTATIONS: 1 Even if reducing emissions really is necessary to save the planet, our effort, however Herculean, is barely-better-than-futile; because Australia’s total annual emissions are exceeded by just the annual increase in China’s :  2. At least so far, it’s climate change policy that’s doing harm. Climate change itself is probably doing good; or at least, more good than harm :  3. There’s the evidence that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide – which is a plant food after all – are actually greening the planet and helping to lift agricultural yields. In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial 4. :  Contrary to the breathless assertions that climate change is behind every weather event, in Australia the floods are not bigger, the bushfires are not worse, the droughts are not deeper or longer, and the cyclones are not more severe than they were in the 1800s. 5. Sometimes, they do more damage but that’s because there’s more to destroy, not because their intensity has increasedI think that climate change is real, humanity makes a contribution. It’s important to take strong and effective action against it, and that is what our direct action policy does 6. The important thing is to take strong and effective action to tackle climate change, action that doesn’t damage our economy. And that is why the incentive-based system that we’ve got, the direct action policies, which are quite similar to those that president Obama has put into practice, is – that’s the smart way to deal with this, a big tax is a dumb way to deal with it : 7.  While we still seem to be in the grip of a climate cult, the climate cult is going to produce policy outcomes that will cause people to wake up to themselves :  8. The last thing we should do is drive our industries offshore and be putting pressure on household budgets and risk third world-style blackouts all in the name of climate change. We have got to be sensible and balanced and proportionate about these things and I don’t think other policymakers are right now :  9. Abbott called for Australia to withdraw from the Paris Agreement :  10. Storms are not more severe; droughts are not more prolonged; floods are not greater; and fires are not more intense than a century ago – despite hyperventilating reportage and over-the-top claims from Green politicians. :  11.  In a speech to the Institute of Policy Affairs, he called on the Coalition to focus intently on cost of living pressures and renewed his attack on the renewable energy target, blaming it for making gas and coal unaffordable. : 12. He rejected a proposed clean energy target and said a new coal-fired power station should be built as soon as possible, with government funding if necessary.  : 13. on radio host Alan Jones’ show during which he said he thought wind farms were “visually awful” and could have “potential health impacts  :
  2. JOHN STEWART AGNEW:  MEP for the East of England for the UKIP 2009-2019 and sat on the European Parliament’s agriculture and rural development committee. Member of right-wing populist groups such as France’s National Rally of Marine Le Pen. Elected rapporteur of the agriculture committee. Stood as a UKIP candidate in general elections since 2001. In the 2017 UKIP leadership election, Agnew backed anti-Islam candidate Anne-Marie Walters. Worked as a soil and water conservation officer in Rhodesia in the 1970s and was a member of the reserve Rhodesian army. A member of the National Farmers Union, the Songbird Survival Trust, and the Anglia Farmers’ Cooperative. He receives a subsidy from the EU Common Agricultural Policy. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE:  He says that global warming is a scam and criticizes what he calls warmist rants. His blog “My Personal Experience of the Global Warming Scam”, he wrote about “doom-laden predictions of man-made climate change and used a series of cold winters to argue against global warming. His theory of global warming is that it is caused by cosmic ray fluctuations, sunspot activity and planetary gravitational pulls from elsewhere in the galaxy. He once attacked David Attenborough for warning writing that Attenborough is attracted to hyperbole as flies are drawn to the jam pot and that Attenborough had gone bananas. He says that the IPCC is made up mostly of politicians. He praises the Heartland Institute, Richard Lindzen, and the Global Warming Policy Foundation. QUOTATIONS:  1. The very excitable David Attenborough is attracted to hyperbole as flies are drawn to the jam pot. If he were a woman, instead of being only rather effeminate, we should call him Hysteria. Yesterday he warned us that “Time is running out to save the planet”. It’s all tosh but with rich rewards in grants. 2.The IPCC likes to advertise itself as the representative body of scientific experts but it is nothing of the sort, being largely made up of politicians. 3. Other than water, the other greenhouse gases, CO2, methane and nitrous oxide have a negligible effect on our climate. 4. This ludicrous myth of man-made global warming is going to impact on agriculture. Farmers apparently are going to have to improve the world weather by emitting fewer greenhouse gases. There are two of them that we emit where we find ourselves in total contradiction to EU dogma. 5. If you succeed in decarbonising Europe, our crops will have no natural gas to grow from. We have to have carbon dioxide. This is madness. Absolute madness what you are suggesting. Our agriculture industry is going to suffer heavily if we attempt to bury carbon dioxide. It is absolutely mad.  6. I wonder when the bubble is going to burst on this whole ludicrous man-made global warming saga. 7. It is more than likely that this ‘renewables scam’ will have run its course by then and I am determined to live to 90 years old, just to see what happens
  3. ALEXANDRE AMARAL DE AGUIAR:  Alexandre Aguiar is the Meteorologist and weather forecaster for the MetSul Weather Center of Ulbra TV in Porto Alegre, Brazil. He is a contributor to the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a website promoting climate change skepticism[LINK] . Aguair has quoted fellow skeptic Victor Manuel Velasco who believes 1. We are facing an imminent “little ice age.” 2. Aguiar believes that severe weather events are not connected to global warmingWe have accounts of major droughts and flooding for two hundred years. And the 2005 drought was not the worst. 3. The Southern Cone of South America is a high risk area for tornadoes and severe storms cannot be blamed on global warming.” 4. He also believes that the earth may be cooling
  4. ARUN AHLUWALA:  Ph.D. Panjab University, Geology, Professor and head of the department of geology at Punjab University. Specialty: mining geology, hydrogeology, field geology, stratigraphy, remote sensing, sedimentology, and petroleum geology. Member & Principal Investigator, Association of Petroleum Geologists. Director Centre of Advanced Studies in Geology. Visiting scholar in geology University of Cincinnati, and at ETH, Zurich, Switzerland. Outreach Program Committee, UNESCO International Year of Planet Earth. VIEWS ON AGW: (Concerned about pollution) Global cooling and global warming are natural cycles all over the earth history spanning 4600 million years. Man or no man it happened due to so many natural processes and each time lasted long enough first two events created a snow ball earth around 2300 and 700 million years back. Perceptions about climate change often are hotly debated by politicians and generalizations preferred over science. Contrary to AGW theory, we are currently in an overall ice house age which started just about 2.54 million years back. Even in the small global warming span of about 18000 years when the average Earth temperature has gone up around 6 degrees Celsius and sea levels in spite of going up about 100 metres are lowest ever in the earth history. The sea levels have been much higher during prolonged spells of global warming in Precambrian, Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic. The Meghalian span could prove our biggest undoing if we keep on dumping our wetlands, oceans and atmosphere with rubbish. During the last 18000 years man saw a long ice age in beginning and then three periods of warming much before he cut out half the natural heritage of forest cover after the industrial revolution. The hotly debated alarm is actually about a currently ongoing mini global warming between two periods of glaciation one gone and one to follow. With solar flares expected to diminish shortly, an extra but very brief mini ice age within this warming is expected too. The much hyped role of man accelerating the current global warming is not such a gospel truth as it is made out in passionate climate meets very often by the haves pressing the have nots. Rich polluters are often preaching least polluters and bulldozing poor nations whose resources are limited and need to develop fast is almost a “now or never” situation. Climate of politics and politics of climate change often mask the objectivity of science dividing debate between skeptics and believers. If climate change is science it cannot be a dogma. . Climate change has happened and will happen, pollution too has happened naturally in the two biggest volcanisms in Earth history in Siberia at Permian -Triassic boundary in Siberia and later at K-T boundary in India represented by our globally famous Deccan Volcanics. Life nearly disappeared at P-T boundary & later Dinosaurs had to say adieu around 65 million years ago because of volcanic pollution not at all of their making. But the pollution by man may be petty from Geological history view point though, yet it can be fatal for humans if our lungs, livers, kidneys, joints and skins are already decaying and degenerating due the toxins we are inhaling day in and day out. Infants and oldies will go first but others too shall follow. Choice is tough but has to be made. Now or never are the options. Climate change is always a long term issue but skyline change is not even a short term issue but an existing disaster unforeseen. Earth was quite beautiful before man and it will be quite beautiful after man. Moment of truth is before us. How long we delay our departure, is the question. We owe it to our next generations and the biodiversity we share the planet with, to learn from geological history: pollution wipes out even dinosaurs who spanned over 155 million years. We just arrived, let us stay a bit. QUOTATIONS: Quoted in a U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Minority Staff Report as ”1. More than 650 International Scientists Dissent over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: 2. The IPCC has become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open mind, I am amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists. 3. In his original paper, Ahluwalia had written additional context and suggested “to err on the side of caution let us presume man may be contributing a minor fraction towards warming of the earth.
  5. SYUN-ICHI-AKASOFU:  Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, Fairbanks:Founding director, International Arctic Research Center (IARC), University of Alaska Fairbanks. Areas of expertise are physics and geophysics. He is a well-known climate change skeptic and a speaker at Heartland Institute events. He is Alaska’s best known climate denier. STANCE ON CLIMATE: In a the paper “Natural Components of Climate Change over the last few 100 years”, Akasofu spoke about natural causes of climate variations. He says that climate change during the last few hundred years may be interpreted mainly in terms of a combination of the recovery effect and the multi-decadal oscillation. These are natural changes. Thus, there is a possibility that only a small fraction of the warming between 1900 and 2000 may be attributable to the greenhouse effect. In this view, the predicted temperature change in 2100 is about 0.5°C ± 0.2°C.”  QUOTATIONS: 1. Although I am not a climatologist, it has been interesting to observe climatology from the point of view of an Arctic Scientist. In order for the field of climatology and IPCC to be healthy, I want to provide a few criticisms, which I hope are constructive.” 2. Climate change, or temperature, has been rising. Somehow the IPCC decided that the increase in the last 100 years is due to the greenhouse effect; however, a significant part of that would be just due to natural change. So, even if we spend lots of money on suppressing CO2 release, it wouldn’t do any good, because it’s a natural change. 
  6. RALPH ALEXANDER: PhD. Physics, University of Oxford. Associate Professor of Physics at Wayne State University and former President and co-founder of Ion Surface Technology, a small high-tech materials company. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE & QUOTATIONS: Author of Global Warming False Alarm, 2009. The book contends that 1. global warming is the result of natural causes. He holds that 2. Global warming may be real, but there’s hardly a shred of good scientific evidence that it has very much to do with the amount of CO2 we’re producing, 3. or even that temperatures have risen as much as warmists say that it has.  4. The link between extreme weather and global warming has as much scientific basis as the pagan rite of human sacrifice to ensure a good harvest.” 5. Climate-change skeptics might be regarded as modern-day witches because they think that global warming comes from natural forces. However, it’s superstitious alarmists, who believe that extreme weather originates in our CO2 emissions and who have a dread of impending disaster, who are really the witches. 6. Science is being perverted in the name of global warming, today’s environmental cause celebre.
  7. WILLIAM ALEXANDER: Professor Emeritus, Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa & disaster mitigation and climate change studies.  STANCE ON CLIMATE AND QUOTATIONS: 1. Global warming will not: Pose a threat to water supplies, Adversely affect agricultural production, Increase the risk of floods and droughts, Increase the spread of malaria, Increase the eutrophication of water in dams, Increase soil erosion, Result in the loss of natural plant and animal species, Or result in desertification.  2. There is “no scientifically believable evidence to support the alarmist claims” regarding the existence of climate change.  3. signatory to an open letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon calling for the UN to “lead the UN into abandoning the CO2-based theory of global warming and nullifying its former recommendations.
  8. CLAUDE ALLEGRE, French Geochemist, Ph.D., Physics, University of Paris, Age 75, Outspoken global warming skeptic. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS: 1. When he was younger he had accepted the theory of man-made climate change, saying that “. By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century. He was among 1500 scientists who signed “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in 1992, a letter stressing that global warming’s “potential risks are very great. But he has since stated that 1. the cause of climate change is unknown and that there is no basis for saying, as most do, that the ‘science is settled, 2. We do not deny climate change, but we consider that global warming is not the essential phenomenon. If the temperature increases by 1 or 2° C per century and the sea level rises 25 centimeters, this does not seem catastrophic. 3. We think, for our part, that 4. the essential phenomenon is the increased frequency of extreme events: heat waves or Russian winter, heavy rains with flooding and drought with lack of clean water, and frequent violent tornadoes. All with seemingly random geographic distributions. 5. Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes.
  9. HARRY ALFORD: Founding President of the American Black Chamber of Commerce. BS: Correctional Administration.  is the president and founder of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. He has held key sales and executive positions at Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson and the Sara Lee Corporation.He has testified before House committees that regulations and limitations  on the energy industry and offshore drilling will cause job losses and hikes in electricity prices. NBCC positions minorities at odds with the EPA, and claims that regulations would cause undue harm to Black Americans. Alford is also a member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chair of their Government Oversight and Consumer Affairs Committee dedicated to resist regulations that will slow the development of affordable energy. DESMOG has learned that the NBCC is well funded by fossil fuel interests and that Alford admits that saying that the legacy of Blacks has been tied to the miraculous history of fossil fuel and the economic growth in black communities because of the successful harvest of fossil fuels. Consistent with the emergence of the Industrial Revolution and the availability of the Homestead Act for freed slaves, fossil fuels have been on the side of blacks. Alford is a supporter of fossil fuels. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.The climate changes as time goes on – sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. So far, there is no pattern that seems to be very detrimental to our earth. 2. It is like Stevie Wonder wrote, ‘When you believe in things you don’t understand; you suffer. Superstition  3. These are very exciting times for the fuel industry in America. We are at the point of being totally oil independent. We are finding new reserves. Natural gas is now abundant thanks to Fracking. Thanks to Fracking we have changed from gas importers to gas exporters.  4. There can be no America without the utilization of coal. 5. Coal is a vital component to our infrastructure and will remain a vital resource.  6. In November 2015, Alford said that NOAA and NASA reported that no global warming has been detected in the past 18 years. 7. No global warming, but millions of jobs have been erased through adverse regulations in the name of addressing the global warming issue. Billions of dollars have been spent trying to address the same ‘ghost.’ Many low-income and minority communities have suffered from these onerous regulations The Sierra Club and similar organizations are clinging to the global warming myth. In fact, they can be fanatical about it. They are funded by billionaires who try to manipulate our economic status and disrupt the common peace. They have even funded a cadre of “goons” who will verbally and sometimes physically attack any person or group that questions the global warming issue.“Believe me, I have personally experienced these nuts, and the National Black Chamber of Commerce has been slandered for its energy positions. 8. The continuous stream of unreasonable and overreaching regulations that have come out of the federal government over the last few years has led to the denial of countless opportunities for minorities escalate energy costs for Blacks and Hispanics in the United States, including individuals, families and minority-owned businesses.  9. Legislation that fails to meaningfully reduce the human impact on the climate or does so in an economically unsustainable manner, can’t be effective. Under the House bill, American consumers and businesses would take on a heavy burden. This burden would fall at exactly the wrong time. I’m not a climate change expert, but I have to believe that there are better options than the one currently on the table.  10. Families and individuals who prefer or need trucks, SUVs, and crossovers pay more to subsidize those who buy smaller vehicles or electric vehicles under the existing mandate. This significant, needless, and unjust cost is a very real regressive tax on American families that has made our country worse off.  11. Raising the gas tax is a bad idea. It will make the burden of government on families and businesses heavier. 
  10. HELMUT ALT:  Professor of electrical and computer engineering at the FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Honorary professor at the University of Aachen, honorary judge at the Social Court in Aachen. Worked as an engineer at Rheinischen Licht- und Kraftwerken GmbH. Attained his Doktor der Ingenieurwissenschaften in 1975. Since 1975 he worked at RWE Rhein-Ruhr AG, a subsidiary of RWE Energy AG the number one producer of power in Germany. Alt worked his way up to Head of supply management. STANCE ON CLIMATE AND QUOTATIONS: 1. The EEG [German Renewable Energy Act] is anti-competitive and should be replaced by a simple legal warden investment promotion measures for the different types of systems and then withdrawn. 2. At the 12th conference of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), the Heartland Institute’s 13th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC13). He spoke on “Energy transition; desire and reality” 3. At the Eighth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-8)/Fifth International Conference on Climate and Energy (ICCE-5) sponsored by the Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE). he spoke on Germany’s new Energy Concept between Dream and Reality”. 4. At EIKE’s Third International Conference on Climate and Energy (ICCE-3). he spoke on Volatile storage of electrical energy on a large scale and conventional modern energy.”  5. At RWE, one of Europe leading electricity and gas companies, he opposed including renewable energy in the company’s focus because highlighting generation and procurement of renewable energy is superfluous as regards the company’s concentration and goals of focus, and it is also dangerous in view of competing supplementary options within a primary energy mix that is to be as diversified as possible.
  11. GABRIEL CALZADA ALVAREZ (SPAIN): Associate Professor of Economics at King Juan Carlos University, Founding President of Instituto Juan de Mariana, a libertarian think tank. Rowley Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Fellow at the Centre for the New Europe. Widely published and visible in the media. Author of “Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources” which made a number of claims disputed by DeSmog regarding green energy and job growth. STANCE ON CLIMATE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. Scientists are still uncertain how much human activity, through CO2 emissions, might be contributing to climate change in comparison to other factors like water vapor or solar activity. There is a scientific consensus that, even if we froze carbon dioxide emissions warming would decrease barely 0.07C. 2. Spain attempted a clean energy transformation. But that it was economically destructive to deliberately pursue more expensive and less efficient energy in order to create green jobs. The effort caused social harm and net job destruction. Many citizens of a nation are hurt when such policies are pursued.  3. All the resources that have been taken from other parts of the economy and put into the creation of these jobs or the subsidy of renewable energy, if you look at how many jobs this amount of money created in the rest of the economy, you see that for every job that you have been creating, or subsidizing, you would have created 2.2 jobs in the rest of the economy.
  12. KAUS F. ANGERER: MS Petroleum Engineering, Master of Business Administration (MBA), Energy Management. General Manager at the German branch of BNK Petroleum, exploration, and production of oil and gas with a focus on Europe. Formerly of the Austrian energy group OMV as head of the OMV office in the United Arab Emirates where he oversaw development activities and coordinated with the International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) of Abu Dhabi. Prior to that he was General Manager of OMV Iran and Project Manager for Iran projects in OMV’s headquarters in Vienna. Prior to that he was at OMV in Pakistan as Operations Manager and Head of the Petroleum Engineering Department. Prior to that he worked as a Petroleum Engineer at RAG, a Shell – Mobil joint venture in Austria. He also taught as an Assistant Professor at the Petroleum Institute of the Leoben University in Austria. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1 Fracking and shale gas enthusiast, Angerer assures that fracking will not contaminate drinking water: “We go one to three kilometers deep. The highly mineralized groundwater there will never be used as drinking water.  2. Speaker at European Unconventional Gas Summit. The conference brings together government officials, operators and industry heads to study above ground risks and overcoming the technical challenges of European shale reservoir development. 3. Speaker at the Eighth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-8)/Fifth International Conference on Climate and Energy (ICCE-5) sponsored by both the Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE). Angerer’s speech is titled “Shale Gas – A Source of ‘Alternative’ Fossil Energy?
  13. BOB ARMSTRONG: Owner of CoSy.com computer programming company, and the previous drug affairs director of the Manhattan Libertarian Party. Associated with  the Heartland Institute. MS in Psychophysics. Worked for Xerox, and Rochester Gas and Electric mostly as computer programmer. In his work on “planetary temperature” he provides resources on modeling the planet in APL and “how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball like earth. He says that a detailed model of the planet can be written in a few pages of succinct APL definitions and that these models are superior to the FORTRAN programs used by climate scientists. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS: 1. HERE DESMOG INSERTS THEIR STANDARD TEXT ABOUT CLIMATE DENIAL FUNDING BY FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS SUCH AS EXXON AND THE KOCH BROTHERS. KOCH  2. The anti-science global statist ‘Al GoreWarming’ cult is second only to traditional economic Marxism in its destructivenes of human and ecological welfare.  3.  The 33c warmer that our surface is than what we absorb from the sun is trivially due to gravity .  4. A particle moving up slows down , cools ; moving down speeds up , warms. Newton’s same law which explains why satellites in low orbit must go faster than those in higher QUANTITATIVELY explains the temperature profiles of all planets and their atmospheres whatever their composition. This relationship as understandable as an apple falling on your head is absent from the therefore equationless GHG paradigm – in defiance of conservation of energy . 5.I’m a bleeding heart Libertarian with particular understanding of the nonscience of the CO2 global warming fraud.  6. What our restoring a little of the carbon from previous lush epochs is doing is speeding the respiration of the biosphere .The inevitable compensation for our returning some carbon to the biosphere is an increase in green plant growth. 7. The evidence is becoming overwhelming that CO2 does NOT affect mean global temperature. On the other hand, evidence is mounting that it IS making the planet greener. The only real question is if rationality can prevail before the Global Governments do too much harm.  8. Bobby and his fellow watermelons are the ones guilty of crimes against reality. Many are outright liars, the masses are innumerate sheeple sucked into the absurdity that the molecule which married with H2O enables life is inimical to it . Venerable institutions have lost respect along with their pre-internet paper based fiefdoms.  9. These Eco-Nazis living on inherited wealth and privilege don’t give a damn about the welfare of the poor for whom energy is a several thousand dollar per year expense . And it’s the Koch’s and their competition who produce that energy as affordably and responsibly they can. 10. It is to be expected that the true believers in this historic delusion are the same arrogant , willfully ignorant , progressives who submit to the cult of the state . For them to come to terms with the falsehood of this quantitative scientific absurdity is to face the falsehood of their belief in the superiority of the socialist state and the demagogues who seek its power over their fellow citizens. Once again the god fails. 11. The Eco-Nazis are willfully , consciously guilty of Crimes against Reality . And they admit it. 12. CO2 is the ultimate “green” gas. It is a grade school fact that every green tree, every blade of grass, indeed all life is ultimately CO2 + H2O combined by sunlight plus a bit of ash and it is proven in both laboratory and practice that plants thrive on more than twice our current 3 or 4 molecules per 10,000. Life could not have started on earth without a (20%) CO2 rather than O2 atmosphere. Only photosynthesis converted it to an oxygen atmosphere bouncing along the minimal CO2 necessary to keep the plants alive. So any downside to the few percent of the natural CO2 budget we are restoring to our atmosphere from carbon sequestered in previous incredibly lush epochs must be weighed against this indisputable greening of the planet. 13. Speaker at the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9) in Las Vegas, Nevada. Bob Armstrong presented with Anthony Lupo and Olavi Karner, in a talk titled “New Estimates of Climate Sensitivity,” which took place July 9, 2014.
  14. MARTIN ARMSTRONG: After High School, he attended TCI College of Technology in New York City and audited courses at Princeton University. He does hot have a college degree but is a self taught economist and creator of the Economic Confidence Model , an economic cycle theory built on economic waves with a frequency of 8.6 years. It is based on historical financial panics. The  wave of 8.6 years moved through larger waves of 51.6 years. He was the founding president of Princeton Economics International Ltd. that provided economics and financial analysis services based on a computer model of  economic confidence cycle theory. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission successfully prosecuted Armstrong for fraud whereupon he was jailed. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. Climate change mitigation measures are an agenda to eliminate our freedom and to move toward an authoritarian state. 2. Climate is changing and it is part of the normal cycle, not human-induced.  3. I support capitalism and freedom and I am against authoritarianism and totalitarian systems. Climate change is an agenda to eliminate your freedom. 4. The entire argument is to support a move toward an authoritarian state. You better wake up. This is not truly about the climate change, it is all about controlling society, eliminating democracy, and changing the entire economic model that changes society. There is far more at stake here than most people realize. 5. There is now growing concern among scientists that we may be heading into global cooling rather than warming. The concerns center on the apparent weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. This seems to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling.  6. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the planet is going through some warming stages created by mankind. That is total nonsense. 7. CO2 is not a pollutant. There is no reason for us to be concerned about rising sea levels. There is a population control conspiracy behind global warming prevention measures.  8.  CO2 levels have been much higher over the millennia. The Global Warming crowd has an agenda and the core of that is to reduce the population. They remain influenced by the Malthus theory and have been hell-bent on stopping population growth. 9.  Over the past 100 million years, we have been in a decline in CO2 level dropping from 500 ppm to 200 ppm with an average of about 300 ppm. They refuse to address any of the historical evidence no less the cycle of life itself.  10.  Humans exhale typically consists of 40,000 ppm to even 50,000 ppm of CO2. Should we be fined or extinguished because we are a major contributor to CO2 levels? Those who are demonizing CO2 as a ‘pollutant’ fail to explain that in a room filled with people CO2 levels can commonly reach 2000 ppm with no apparent ill effects. 11. The danger from the Global Warming crowd is that they are misleading the entire world and preventing us from what is dangerously unfolding that sparks the rapid decline in civilization – global cooling.This is not my opinion, but simply our computer’s. This year will be much colder for Europe than the last three. It will also be cold in the USA. We are in a global cooling period and all the data we have in our computer system warns that the earth is turning cold not warm.  12.  This cooling is very serious. This decline in the energy output of the sun will manifest in a commodity boom in agriculture as shortages send food prices higher. We will see famine begin to rise as crops fail and that will inspire disease and plagues. We will see the first peak in agricultural prices come probably around 2024 after the lows are established on this cycle.  13.  Britain is moving into an Ice Age and energy prices are rising.  14. Instead of wasting all this effort to try to support government raising taxes on people to prevent ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’, it might be better spent informing people we are going back into a cooling period and there will be wild swings back and forth for the next 25 years. It snowed here on Friday.  15. An investigation of the raw data recording temperature has revealed that once again these academics are manipulating the data to keep billions of dollars flowing into their hands. No matter how many times they are caught, government will not change course because they want to believe in global warming to justify higher taxes.  16.  Anyone who thinks that Global Warming is really caused by man is naive to say the least. This is a political agenda by politicians and academics  and to raise taxes and reduce population growth. 17. Global Warming is all about money and raising taxes for politicians to pay for their pensions and support all their illegitimate children. 18. Global warming is nonsense. 19. We can impact a local area, but we CANNOT alter the course of the entire planet. On that score, we are but a pimple on a fly’s ass. So until I see HARD evidence beyond assumptions for a few decades, I will keep it real. We can not alter the trend of a market anymore than we can change the environment of the entire world. 
  15. SCOTT ARMSTRONG: Marketing Professor. Ph.D., Management, M.S., Industrial Administration. Marketing professor. Research in  forecasting methods, strategic planning, survey research, and research methods. Author of  “Principles of Forecasting” and “Long-Range Forecasting”. Co-founder of forecastingprinciples.com.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS: 1. Extended Climate Challenge to Al Gore based his forecasts with a naive model.  2. Published a peer-reviewed paper showing that the forecasting procedures used by the IPCC violated 72 of 89 relevant principles of forecasting. Developed a model that follows the principles. Because the climate is complex and poorly understood, our model predicts that global average temperatures will not change. We concluded that there are no scientific forecasts that support long-term global warming, nor any that it would prove dangerous if it occurred, and none showing that cost-effective policies could stop warming. No one has provided evidence to challenge our conclusions. In fact, a leading global warming alarmist has been careful to say that the IPCC does not provide forecasts, only scenarios. In other words, the role of the IPCC is that of a storyteller.”  3. [HERE DESMOG INSERTS THEIR STANDARD TEXT ABOUT REBEKAH MERCER, THE AMNH, AND AN ALLEGED MONEY CONNECTION BETWEEN CLIMATE DENIERS AND THE MERCER FAMILY THAT FORCES THE DENIERS TO SUPPORT REBEKAH MERCER IN THE AMNH ISSUE.]Demonstrators holding placards and banners during a protest2. The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide. 3.The Heartland Institute awarded a “Lifetime Achievement Award in Climate Science” to J. Scott Armstrong between dinner keynote presentations at the Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change.    4. Scott Armstrong was a signatory of a petition organized by Richard Lindzen of the Cato Institute urging President Donald Trump to pull the United States out of the United Nations international convention on climate change (UNFCCC).  5. Scott Armstrong is listed as a “Founding Member” of group named Climate Exit (Clexit) led by climate change denier Christopher Monckton. According to Clexit’s founding statement, “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.  6. Clexit’s founding statement: If the Paris climate accord is ratified, or enforced locally by compliant governments, it will strangle the leading economies of the world with pointless carbon taxes and costly climate and energy policies, all with no sound basis in evidence or science. 7. Scott Armstrong was a speaker on Climate Science and Accurate Data,” at the Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC10) in Washington, D.C., with Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer.  8. Scott Armstrong published an article defending himself and fellow climate change skeptic Willie Soon saying that they did not profit from their research paper publications.  9. Scott Armstrong is a contributor to the book Climate Change: The Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs. The Institute of Public Affairs is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at a major tobacco company. 10. At a Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change Scott Armstrong presented “Global Warming: A Scientific Forecasting Controversy or a Political Movement? HERE DESMOG INSERTS THEIR STANDARD TEXT ABOUT CLIMATE DENIAL FUNDING BY FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS SUCH AS EXXON AND THE KOCH BROTHERS. KOCH 11. Scott Armstrong signed a full page ad funded by the CATO Institute that criticizes President Obama’s declaration that “few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change,” stating that “with all due respect Mr. President, that is not true. 12. Armstrong (with Willie Soon and Kesten Green, presented a research paper on forecasting polar bear populations at the Heartland Institute’s Second International Conference on Climate Change. The paper criticizes projections of declining polar bear populations. A rebuttal of the paper by numerous scientists was published at Interfaces. on March, 2008.  13. Scott Armstrong speech at the Heartland Institute’s First International Conference on Climate Change was on Strengths and Weaknesses of Climate Models.
  16. JEROME ARNETT:  Pulmonologist and a fellow of the American College of Chest Physicians and once served on its ethics committee. He is also a policy advisor for The Heartland Institute, an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. There is no evidence that humans can alter the natural climate cycles. As Singer notes, stopping continental drift may be an easier task.  2. Global warming’ is a fraud that has been perpetrated by unethical environmentalists, by activists with no credentials, by climate scientists using wildly inaccurate computer models, by government bureaucracies, and by irresponsible liberal news media. It has become a religion, and scientists who question it have even received death threats  3. In response to the 1992 EPA report on second hand cigarette smoke, he wrote “EPA’s 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. Influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas. The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty ‘scientific’ outcomes through the use of pseudoscience have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government over-regulation and the squandering of public money.  4. HERE DESMOG INSERTS THEIR STANDARD TEXT ABOUT CLIMATE DENIAL FUNDING BY FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS SUCH AS EXXON AND THE KOCH BROTHERS.  KOCH
  17. RON ARNOLD:   The father of the Wise Use movement,” also coined the  term “eco-terrorism.” Once the Executive Vice President of the the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE), working alongside Alan Gottlieb. Arnold has proclaimed himself the “Darth Vader for the capitalist revolution.  He was the first president of the American Freedom Coalition (AFC) , the political arm of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.  He declared his goal as “to eradicate the environmental movement.” ExxonMobil, provided at least $290,000, one of CDFE’s largest funders is the Mercer Family Foundation. The foundation controlled by Rebekah Mercer contributed $800,000. In 1990, Arnold and Gottlieb created another organization called “Earth Citizens Alliance for Resources and the Environment” with the stated goal to “educate the public about the wise use of resources”. Ron Arnold received $3,000 per day as a speaker or organizer of groups combating environmentalists. Ron Arnold likely appropriated the term “Wise Use” from Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service, who is quoted as saying “Conservation is the wise use of resources.” Arnold used the term during a multiple use strategy conference in Reno, Nev., where he suggested that “wholesale mining, logging and grazing are possible while simultaneously preserving the land.”Ron Arnold helped organize the 1988 founding conference of the Wise Use movement in Reno, Nevada, where he also published the “Wise-Use Agenda.” GOALS OF THE WISE USE MOVEMENT: 1. Clear Cutting old-growth in national forests  2. Rewriting the Endangered Species Act to delist “non-adaptive species” such as the California condor  3. Immediately start drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 4. Open all public lands, including national parks and wilderness areas, to mining and oil exploration. Arnold wrote “the seminal expression of the ideas that have evolved into the richly diverse wise use movement“. Arnold said that the goal of wise use is to “destroy environmentalism once and for all.  Numerous accounts link the Wise Use movement to the Unification Church, a group run by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Influence on Canadian “Share” Groups. Arnold spent several years touring North America where he set up “community” coalitions, many of which used the word “care” or “share” in their names. He has advised the B.C. forestry industry. According to one report, many share groups in British Columbia originated from Arnold’s “Wise Use” movement in the U.S. Ron Arnold and the Wise Use movement have evidently influenced the rhetoric and vocabulary used in the resource debate. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTES:  1. President Obama had it all wrong when he said climate change deniers are a threat to national security. In fact, climate change true believers are the real threat to our national security.   2.  If chlorflourocarbons really destroy ozone, why isn’t there a hole over chlorflourocarbon factories? As for the greenhouse effect, he was emphatic. ‘There isn’t any such thing  3.  Wise Use explained: Educate the public about the use of natural resources. Immediately develop petroleum resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Cut down remaining old-growth forests on public lands and replace with new trees. Cut down 30,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest each year to promote economic forestry practices. Open all public lands, including National Parks, to mining and oil drilling. Construct roads into all wilderness areas for motorized wheel chair use. Stop protecting endangered species, such as the California condor, that were in decline before man arrived.  4.  To renew the conservation movement of President Teddy Roosevelt and his sidekick, Forest Service chief Gifford Pinchot. Pinchot once said that conservation is the wise use of resources. It’s an attempt to revitalize the conservation movement against the ‘don’t use it at all’ thinking that has evolved in environmentalism.  5. The goal of the Wise Use movement is very clear. Referring to environmentalists, Arnold explains, ‘We’re out to kill the fuckers. We’re simply trying to eliminate them. Our goal is to destroy environmentalism once and for all.‘  6.  We are sick to death of environmentalism and so we will destroy it. We will not allow our right to own property and use nature’s resources for the benefit of mankind to be stripped from us by a bunch of eco-facists.”  7.  Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement […] We’re mad as hell. We’re not going to take it anymore. We’re dead serious – we’re going to destroy them,” he said. “We want to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely […] and we want people to understand that is a noble goal.  8.  Environmentalism is a new paganism that worships trees and sacrifices people.  9. Paul Driessen and Ron Arnold co-published the second edition of their book, Cracking Big Green: To Save the World from the Save-The-Earth Money Machine. The book bills itself as “A stunning expose of Big Green – the modern environmental movement and its hidden financial masters. The first version of their book, bearing the same title, was published in 2014 by the pro-fossil-fuel, climate change denial organization CFACT.  10.  The Endangered Species Act does not regulate species but habitat, which is land-use control, The Fish and Wildlife Service uses its power to separate land from use.
  18. EDWARD ATKIN:  sits on the board of directors of the campaign wing of the UK climate science denial group the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) . He sold his baby care manufacturing business, Cannon Avent, for £300m in 2005 and donated £20,000 each year between 2012 and 2016 to the GWPF through his Atkin Charitable Foundation. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. He does not have a publicly revealed stance on climate change. However, we know that he has funded the GWPF, an organization that says that 1. policies to stop climate change are based on climate models that completely failed to predict the lack of warming for the past two decades” and contends that “carbon dioxide has been mercilessly demonized as ‘carbon pollution’, when in fact it is a benefit to the planet.” 2. Atkin criticised government regulations, saying: “The biggest single reason why entrepreneurs start their own business is because they do not like being told by anyone what to do, especially when they have little or no respect for the people handing out the instructions.  3.  Atkin donated £20,000 each year between 2012 and 2016 to the GWPF through the Atkin Charitable Foundation. 
  19. AUGUST AUYER (deceased):  Meteorologist, M.S., Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University. Professor Emeritus at the University of Wyoming and a former TV weatherman. Founding member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, an organization with the aim of “refuting “unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.” The Coalition was caught lying about temperature trends in a 2009 press release that also criticized the respected climatologist Jim Salinger, an IPCC author.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. Water vapour is responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm. If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time. With CO2 alone it would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper. 2.  A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype and political spin has created the current hysteria around climate change.  3. Listed as one of the signatories of the 2006 open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that urged inaction on climate policy.
  20. DENNIS AVERY (deceased):  Studied agricultural economics at Michigan State University and the University of Wisconsin. Dennis was director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, where he was editor of the journal Global Food Quarterly. He  passed away on June 20, 2020 at age 83. Avery was a supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade. He also considers himself an expert on “agriculture, environment, world hunger issues, biotechnology and pesticides, trade, and water issues. He frequently commented on global warming science and policy. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. He had worked with Fred Singer and jointly proposed that there is clear and convincing evidence of a 1,500-year climate cycle. And if the current warming trend is part of an entirely natural cycle, as Singer and Avery conclude, then actions to prevent further warming would be futile, could impose substantial costs upon the global economy and lessen the ability of the world’s peoples to adapt to the impacts of climate change.  2.  Avery has also said that the next twenty to thirty years will bring us cooler temperatures. That the earth’s temperatures have dropped an average of 0.6 Celsius in the last two years. The Pacific Ocean is telling us, as it has told us 10 times in the past 400 years, you’re going to get cooler.  3. Why did most of our moderate modern warming take place before 1940 (with 1934 being the warmest year) and why haven’t we had any warming over the last nine years? Could it possibly be the moderate natural 1,500-year cycle revealed in the ice cores and seabed sediments?  Avery appeared at a live-streamed Heartland Institute media event in Katowice, Poland scheduled to coincide with the 24th UN Conference of the Parties for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report titled “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels,” Avery said 4.  We now have nitrogen fertilizer that’s feeding 6 billion people and the greens refuse to use it. They want organic food, they want food not grown with nitrogen, not grown with pesticides, and they want energy not produced with either fossil fuels or nuclear, and I submit it is time for even the greens to recognize the difference between necessity and preference. We need nitrogen fertilizer. We’ve got to feed eight and a half billion people in 2060 before the human numbers begin to drop off. We need the pesticides to protect that food while it’s growing and while it’s in storage, and we need energy – if not from fossil fuels then from the only other source we know that works and produces no CO2. You can produce the nuclear from uranium or thorium, but you’d better produce it.  5.  Heartland’s report was touted as a summary for policymakers, and featured a section on the benefits of fossil fuels to human prosperity, health, and the environment. Heartland claims that their data proves that “humans are not causing a climate crisis.
  21. LAWSON BADER:  MA in Public Policy Analysis. President and CEO of DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund. On the Board of Directors and formerly the President of The Competitive Enterprise Institute; and on the board of directors of the State Policy Network. These organizations are described as “the dark money of the Conservative movement because the ultimate donors are not identified except for the Koch Brothers.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  Signatory to a declaration organized by the Cornwall Alliance that calls on politicians to abandon fruitless and harmful policies to control global temperature described as “Protect the Poor: Ten Reasons to Oppose Harmful Climate Change Policies 2. Earth’s temperature naturally warms and cools cyclically throughout time, and warmer periods are typically more conducive to human thriving than colder periods.While human addition of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), to the atmosphere may slightly raise atmospheric temperatures, observational studies indicate that the climate system responds more in ways that suppress than in ways that amplify CO2’s effect on temperature, implying a relatively small and benign rather than large and dangerous warming effect. Rising atmospheric CO2 benefits all life on Earth by improving plant growth and crop yields, making food more abundant and affordable, helping the poor most of all. Abundant, affordable, reliable energy, most of it now and in the foreseeable future provided by burning fossil fuels, which are the primary source of CO2 emissions, is indispensable to lifting and keeping people out of poverty. Mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions, pursued to prevent dangerous global warming, would have little or no discernible impact on global temperatures, but would greatly increase the price of energy and therefore of everything else. Such policies would put more people at greater risk than the warming they are intended to prevent, because they would slow, stop, or even reverse the economic growth that enables people to adapt to all climates. They would also harm the poor more than the wealthy, and would harm them more than the small amount of warming they might prevent.  2.  Protect Americans’ Access to Affordable Energy. Congress will likely consider reauthorizing a tax extenders package that includes production tax credits (PTC) for wind and solar energy. These credits deserve to go the way of the Model T. They amount to subsidies for politically connected energy firms that cannot compete in the energy marketplace on either price or reliability. Energy from wind, solar, and other renewable sources is more expensive than energy from fossil fuels. So-called renewables are costly, and those costs are ultimately passed on to consumers, for no discernable environmental benefit. Nine of the 11 largest wind power-producing states are experiencing skyrocketing electricity prices, rising more than four times the national average.  3. From carbon capture to fracking to climate change to coal production, the EPA is interested more in pursuing the Obama administration’s desire to regulate out of business industries it doesn’t like, rather than ensure proper environmental stewardship.  4.  Lawson Bader’s Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit suing the Obama White House over a video that claimed global warming might be tied to last year’s extreme cold spell, commonly referred to as the polar vortex. The White House stated that the video did not represent the official agency position and instead represented the “personal opinions of John Holdren, and OSTP Senior Communications Advisor, Becky Fried. 5.  CEI then filed a Freedom of Information Act request for all White House documents and e-mails discussing whether the validity of the science really does constitute Holdren and Fried’s personal opinions and all documents related to the cost of producing Holdren’s video.  6. Lawson Bader is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance’s declaration titled “Protect the Poor: Ten Reasons to Oppose Harmful Climate Change Policies. The Cornwall Alliance is the most influential evangelical anti-environmentalist in the United States and posits that Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. The Alliance receives millions in funding from the secretive Donors Trust.  7.  The Cornwall Alliance’s declaration about climate change:  “Earth’s temperature naturally warms and cools cyclically throughout time, and warmer periods are typically more conducive to human thriving than colder periods,” and that more CO2 is a good thing, as “Rising atmospheric CO2 benefits all life on Earth by improving plant growth and crop yields, making food more abundant and affordable, helping the poor most of all. Reductions on CO2 emissions would “have little or no discernible impact on global temperatures and would harm the poor more than the wealthy.
  22. RONALD BAILEY:  BA Philosophy and BA Economics. Science correspondent at Reason Magazine. Media Fellow and adjunct scholar at the CATO Institute, where he is an “expert on environmental policy and the relationship between science and public policy. Formerly adjunct analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Author of ECOSCAM: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse, as well as the Editor of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death and The True State of the Planet. Ronald Bailey was a Science and Technology staff writer for Forbes from 1987-1990 and his articles and reviews have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Commentary, The Public Interest, Smithsonian, TechCentralStation, National Review, Reader’s Digest and many other publications. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. And on the climate change issue, when I first heard about this was when I was working at Forbes Magazine, and somebody was saying, well, they’re claiming that we’re going to warm up the climate, and it’s going to get up to about nine degrees warmer. And I turned to the person and I said, you mean that we’ll be able to have palm trees growing down Fifth Avenue in New York now?  2. Government agencies, from worldwide to regional organizations, have been developed to deal with the policy concerns raised by the greenhouse issue. Many of these government groups have expanded in recent years, and their fate is tied to the perception that global warming represents a significant threat to the planet. Bureaucratic inertia virtually guarantees that the greenhouse question will remain high on the list of environmental policy priorities. Despite the evidence reviewed in this chapter, the upcoming versions of the various IPCC reports will continue to trumpet the threat of global warming. Press releases will probably emphasize the risks of the greenhouse effect while remaining silent about the potential benefits of the greenhouse world.  3. The Population Bomb and Limits to Growth are two of the three seminal texts of modern environmental apocalypse. The third text is Silent Spring. These gloomy books sold in the millions, and they have dramatically skewed public policy for the past two and a half decades, slowing economic growth and unnecessarily increasing human misery.   4.  A new generation of doomsters is flooding our schools and universities with more dire predictions of imminent global disaster. For example, neo-Malthusian Lester Brown’s annual State of the World is used in more than five hundred college courses, and our primary and secondary schools are being flooded with Environmentalist propaganda.  5. In my book I hold these environmental alarmists accountable for their faulty analyses, their wildly inaccurate predictions, and their heedless politicization of science, in the hope that the next generation will not grow up feeling that their future is dismal and blighted. This book demonstrates the reality of human progress, and I hope it will thereby help restore the next generation’s belief in the future. 6. If we don’t want to perpetuate poverty in the name of preventing climate change, geoengineering may be our way out. Why? Because geoengineering would provide more time for the world’s economy to grow while inventors and entrepreneurs develop and deploy new carbon neutral energy sources to replace fossil fuels.  7. It seems unlikely that fast-growing poor countries like India and China will agree cut back on their use of fossil fuels any time soon. If that’s the case, then emissions reductions in rich countries would have almost no effect on future temperature trends.
  23. STEVE BAKER:  BEng, Aerospace Systems Engineering, Southampton University.
    MSc, Computer Science, Oxford University. Conservative MP for Wycombe since the 2010 General Election. Long-time Eurosceptic,  Co-founded Conservatives for Britain supporting LEAVE. Nigel Lawson has come under fire numerous times in the news for his vocal denial of climate science. Lawson is the founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) the UK’s premier climate science denial campaign group.Steve Baker became chairman of the European Research Group in 2016, a publicly-funded group of Conservatives in Parliament aiming to secure a “hard” Brexit. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  Argued that although he accepts that the climate is changing, resource depletion and population growth are more of a concern, claiming that climate change is a “medium to long term” problem.  2.  Climate science does appear to be subject to uncertainties and climate change appears to be a problem we face in the medium to long term. But I remember the fuel protests. I lived in a remote Cotswold hamlet and I came close to running out of food as well as fuel. I remember the queues and the anxiety and how quickly the situation developed. I remember thinking that we were only ever a couple of meals from barbarism. Perhaps resource depletion is a greater threat than climate change. 3. Voted against allowing carbon dioxide emissions limits to be set at power stations with pollution abatement equipment fitted. Baker has generally voted against climate change measures previously.
  24. JOE BALASH:  B.A., Government & Politics. Former Chief of Staff to Senator Dan Sullivan. Former Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Nominated by President Donald Trump for Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and Mineral Management. His appointment as Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals supported by Ryan Zinke. Worked at the Alaska Governor’s office for the duration that Sarah Palin was governor, and at the beginning of Sean Parnell’s governorship.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  I believe climate change is not a hoax and that man has an influence on climate.  2.Regarding the proposed repeal of methane emission restrictions: In order to achieve energy dominance through responsible energy production, we need smart regulations, not punitive regulations. We believe this proposed rule strikes that balance and will allow job growth in rural America.  3.  The Trump administration will soon be pushing for large coastal areas of the Atlantic Ocean to be opened up for oil and gas exploration.  4.  He assured the association’s members that the Trump administration was doing everything in its power to assist the fossil fuel industry: We have been working aggressively to put America on track to achieve the president’s vision for energy dominance.  5.  At the Heartland Institute’s “America First Energy Conference: “The purpose of this event is to promote and expand energy freedom in the United States, as outlined in President Donald Trump’s bold America First Energy Plan. It is a decisive change in direction from the Obama administration’s war on fossil fuels and focus on the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change. Balash delivered the group’s closing keynote speech.  6. Accompanied BP officials to Asia on the first formal sales trip for the giant project and met in Seoul with KOGAS, Korea’s natural gas company with regards to the Alaska LNG Project. He said thst these were BP’s meetings and that he was invited to come along.  There is a lot of confusion in Asia about Alaska and the opportunities here, so we felt it was important to do this with BP and for us to be seen standing together.  7.  When he was commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, he claimed about 20,000 acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be used for oil and gas leasing. “Our hope is that BLM will move quickly to convey the lands so we can offer them for leasing“.  8. Testified before Congress to support a bill that would “expedite oil and gas leasing and energy infrastructure permitting” in Alaska’s Natural Petroleum Reserve.
  25. SALLIE BALIUNAS:  Ph.D. in Astrophysics, Harvard University (1980). Astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division. Formerly Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Observatory. Adjunct Professor at Tennessee State University. Past contributing editor to the World Climate Report.  ASSOCIATION WITH CLIMATE DENIER GROUPS: Baliunas is associated with many groups skeptical of climate change including the George C. Marshall Institute where she is Senior Scientist and chair of their Science Advisory Board. She has been a Scientific Adviser to the Greening Earth Society, a now-defunct group originally controlled by the Western Fuels Association and described “as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use. Co-published numerous scientific papers with fellow climate change skeptic Willie Soon including a controversial paper in 2003 that suggested the climate hasn’t changed in the last 2000 years. Several members of the Climate Research journal resigned in protest to the flawed peer-review process allowing Baliunas’s paper to be published. In 1997 Baliunas received the Petr Beckmann Award for her devastating critique of the global warming hoax.  STANCE ON CLIMATE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  Is it possible that the temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case … 2.  Measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This is just the period in which human made carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident.  3. The science does not suggest dangerous global warming. If there is any trace at all of a greenhouse warming, it is too small to be seen in the climate record. That means that future warming due to human activities will be quite small –well under one degree C.  4.  Fear often dominates discussion about the earth’s climate. Many people have been led to believe that drastic measures are necessary to prevent the risk of negative future outcomes, such as global warming. As such, we now face a situation where politicians are mis-allocating resources because they are responding to manufactured problems, which are based on public anxiety rather than sound scientific evidence. Ineffective measures like the Kyoto Protocol, built on fear rather than science, will not reduce the future burden of greenhouse gases and will cause many more problems than they solve.   5.Sallie Baliunas is listed as a contributor the book Climate Change: The Facts 2017, published by the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) and edited by Jennifer Marohasy. One of the IPA’s listed experts involved in the book is Ken Ring, who has written about Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat’s Paws.  6.  Climate Change: The Facts 2017 includes contributions from prominent climate deniers including John Abbot, Sallie Baliunas, Paul Driessen, Tony Heller, Craig Idso, Clive James, Pat Michaels, Jo Nova, Ian Plimer, Tom Quirk, Peter Ridd, Ken Ring, Nicola Scafetta, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Matt Ridley, Bjørn Lomborg, and Simon Breheny.  7.  These prominent climate change deniers describe mainstream climate change research as “pseudo-science.
  26. TIM BALLPh.D University of London. Professor Emeritus of geography, Prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community, Former Chairman of the now-defunct NRSP (Natural Resources Stewardship), an organization with strong denier connections including Tim Patterson, Tad Murty and Sallie Baliunas.    Consultant to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), Senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), Connected with many right wing think tanks – including Climate Exit (Clexit), a climate change denial group with the founding statement “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate”. Claims to be Canada’s first PhD in Climatology but this claim is false according to DeSmog says that is not true.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. Climate change is real they say. Of course, that is true. Climate has been changing since the origin of the atmosphere billions of years ago, and there is nothing humans can do to stop it from changing.  2.  Climate change is real,’ they say. So what? Gravity and sunrise are also real. That doesn’t mean we cause them or we would be better off without them. Climate has been changing since the origin of the atmosphere billions of years ago.  3.  What’s wrong with global warming? There are lots of positive benefits to global warming.  4.  In a statement at the Heartland Institute: President Trump demonstrated the ability necessary in all leaders, historically known as the ‘common touch.’ It is the ability to talk to all people without talking down to them. It even worked on many of those adamantly pre-determined not to like or listen to his message.  5. All this would be humorous if it did not have such serious ramifications. In the vain hope of stopping trivial changes in climate, activists and compliant politicians are working hard to force us to switch from coal and other fossil fuels, America’s least expensive and most abundant power sources, to unreliable and expensive alternatives such as wind and solar power. The public need to ask them, ‘Why are you doing this? Whom are you trying to please?  6. Pope Francis advocates the global warming agenda of the IPCC with the help of the Obama White House. Apparently, he doesn’t know their ultimate objective of reducing and controlling population generally contradicts Catholic doctrine.  7.  CFC’s were never a problem, it’s only because the sun is changing.  8. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible  9.  The supposed threat is a 1.5 to 2C increase, but global temperatures were higher than today by at least that much for most of the last 10,000 years. Yet polar bears and the world survived. No one should take the new IPCC climate report seriously.  10.  The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide.  11.  In response to the American Meteorological Society statement “it is it is critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause of recent global warming:  “These are completely false statements”.  12.  Signatory to the Cato Institute letter urging President Donald Trump to pull the United States out of the United Nations international convention on climate change (UNFCCC).
  27. WHITNEY BALL:  BA Political Economy. Founder of Donor’s Trust, a “dark money” financier of right wing climate denial organizations such as the Heartland Institute.
  28. ROBERT BALLING:  PhD Geography, Professor at the school of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning at Arizona State University (ASU). Past Director of ASU’s Office of Climatology from 1989 to 2004. Received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry. Receives $1,000 per month from the Heartland Institute, a climate denier organization. Editor of the World Climate Report, a blog published by global warming skeptic Patrick J. Michaels.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  The scientific evidence argues against the existence of a greenhouse crisis, against the notion that realistic policies could achieve any meaningful climatic impact, and against the claim that urgent action is necessary to reduce the greenhouse threat.  2.  All of us engage in activities that involve burning fossil fuels, and according to some self-proclaimed environmentalists we should feel guilty doing so due to the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) which can lead to ever-dreaded global warming. However, the botanical literature is full of 1,000s of articles showing that elevated atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will be beneficial for plants throughout the world. We see the forest and we see the trees, and they both thank us for the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. So drive out to the forest and feel good about the CO2 coming out of your tailpipe.  3.  Elevated atmospheric CO2 will produce biological miracles all over the world.  4.  Life has existed on our planet for billions of years, and the climate over that time has changed from ice ages to periods much warmer than today. There is little doubt that as our cities grow, heat waves will be more severe in the urban areas. If global warming does in fact add to the problem, we will adapt to the new world, just as humans have done for millions of years.  5. Speaker at the Heartland Institute’s First International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC1) where he gave a presentation on “The Increase in Global Temperature: What It Does and Does Not Tell Us.
  29. AARON BANKS:  A successful salesman without a formal education. Funded the Brexit campaign.  Has links to Nigel Farage. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. Tweet: Global climate change represents the biggest transfer of wealth from poor to rich ever via inflated energy costs.  2.  Regarding flooding in the UK :  The politicians swanking around the disaster zones in hard hats and hi-viz jackets are pointing the finger at climate change – a convenient bogeyman in this situation, but in truth
 this is an unnatural disaster which was made to order in Brussels.
  30. GEORGE DAVID BANKS:  JD, European Union Law, George Mason University (2003). MA, Economics. Executive vice president with the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF). Former Expert on International Climate Policy for the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, Former  energy advisor in the Trump Administration. Was senior adviser on international affairs and climate change at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) under George W. Bush. Was a registered lobbyist for energy companies. Clients included Constellation, FirstEnergy, and the Nuclear Energy Institute. Once worked for climate change denier Senator James Inhofe at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Once worked with the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, an anti-wind-energy activist group. Once worked for Boyden Gray & Associates as lobbyist, Boyden Gray is a climate change denier.   STANCE ON CLIMATE AND QUOTATIONS:   1. Climate is certainly a challenge and is a major problem that we need to work together to address. But there are other big issues out there that I would certainly argue are much more challenging, much more immediate.  2.  Any kind of objective analysis of climate change is going to result in a conclusion that there is a national security impact.  3.  I’m going to say something controversial. The Paris agreement is a good Republican agreement. It’s everything the Bush administration wanted.  4.  We’re part of the UNFCCC and climate mitigation is an important goal of the US but… I don’t think its any surprise that economic prosperity is a higher priority. When the president looks at the Paris Agreement and climate policy in general, he looks through the lens of what effect does this have on US manufacturing and competitiveness.
  31. STEVE BANNON:  MBA, Harvard. Former Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump. Trump initially appointed Bannon as campaign CEO in August, 2016, and then appointed him to the White House position following his victory. Bannon was dismissed from his White House position in August, 2017. Bannon was formerly the Executive Chair of Breitbart News, a far-right news website that Bannon described in 2016 as the “the platform for the alt-right.” He took a leave of absence from Breitbart while working on Trump’s campaign, and after Trump’s election announced his resignation. After losing his position in the Trump administration, Bannon announced he would return to Breitbart. On January 9, 2018, Bannon announced he would be stepping down from Breitbart News reportedly forced by onetime patron Rebekah Mercer and after remarks attributed to Bannon in a new book questioning President Trump’s mental fitness.Bannon is the Executive Chairman and co-founder of The Government Accountability Institute (GAI), a conservative nonprofit investigative research organization that conducted research for the 2015 book Clinton Cash and received significant funding from the Mercer Foundation . Steve Bannon took over as the head of Breitbart News, a group Bannon described as “virulently anti-establishment, particularly ‘anti-‘ the permanent political class.” MediaMatters reported that Breitbart Editor James Delingpole has called NOAA scientists “Talentless low-lives who cannot be trusted.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  Climate change” isn’t real in the Breitbart News Network, and often, though not exclusively, appears in scare quotes, as does “global warming.” NOAA and NASA are full of fraudulent scientists peddling a “cynical exploitation of mass crowd hysteria,” according to Bannon’s chief climate change columnist, and wind turbines are “bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes.  2.  The noted climate change skeptic James Delingpole, who Bannon hired to run Breitbart’s office in Britain as Executive Editor, wrote:  One of his [Bannon’s] pet peeves is the great climate-change con. It’s partly why he recruited a notorious skeptic like myself.  3.  The Pope has “fallen into this hysteria” about climate change. Pope Francis’s encyclical on the environment calls for reduced fossil fuel use in order to help the world’s poor.  4.  A lot of the scientists who are studying global change and studying the effects of greenhouse gases, many of them feel that the Earth’s atmosphere in 100 years is what Biosphere 2’s atmosphere is today,” Bannon explained. “We have extraordinarily high CO2, we have very high nitrous oxide, we have high methane. And we have lower oxygen content. So the power of this place is allowing those scientists who are really involved in the study of global change, and which, in the outside world or Biosphere 1, really have to work with just computer simulation, this actually allows them to study and monitor the impact of enhanced CO2 and other greenhouse gases on humans, plants, and animals.
  32. JACK BARRETT:   Ph.D., Physical chemistry, Manchester. Former chemistry researcher at King’s College in London. His interest in climate change developed with the 1992 Report of the IPCC. He became sceptical about climate modeling and what seemed to him the exaggerated claims emerging from the computer programmes about our future global climate.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  CO2 levels have risen from 280 to 350 parts per million in the last 100 years but  the burning of fossil fuels would result in a four fold increase in CO2 levels to 1400 parts per million.  2.  The lowest 30 metres of the troposphere already contains all the CO2 necessary to absorb all the radiation reflected and emitted back by the earth’s surface at most infra-red wavelengths, except for the “window” between 7.5 and 14 micrometres, through which radiation escapes back into space.  3.  The most likely consequence of all of this is flourishing vegetation rather than runaway global warming.  4.  There is still argument about the magnitude of the climate sensitivity and the impossibility of doubling the carbon dioxide level.  5.  Signatory to the “Leipzig Declaration.” Keynote speaker at the Leipzig Declaration launch. The declaration states, “we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised and premature.
  33. JOSEPH BAST: Studied Economics. Co-founder of the Heartland Institute and former Heartland CEO. Author of “Don’t Poop in my Salad”. Activist against the anti-tobacco movement. Author of  Eco Sanity: A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism, and several other books on market solutions to public policy issues. Bast is best known as Tobacco supporter during the anti-tobacco movement but later denied that he had ever dismissed the adverse health effects of smoking. STANCE ON CLIMATE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  Speaking on behalf of Heartland: Our view is that the causes and consequences of climate change are very complex and not well understood and future climate conditions are probably impossible to forecast.  2.  Most scientists believe that human activity has no appreciable effects on the climate, citing a petition run by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.  3. 
    Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming
    trend.  4.  Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate
    changes.  5.  The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.  6.  A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.  7.  Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.  8.  The best strategy to pursue is ‘no regrets.’ The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing.  9. Regarding IPCC vs NIPCC, How could two teams of scientists come to such obviously contradictory conclusions on seemingly every point that matters in the debate over global warming? There are many reasons why scientists disagree, the subject, by the way, of an excellent book a couple years ago titled Wrong by David H. Freedman. A big reason isthat the IPCC is producing what academics call “post-normal science” while NIPCC is producing old-fashioned “real science.  10.  Scientists Heartland works with demanded we host a ninth conference this year to foster a much-needed frank, honest, and open discussion of the current state of climate science and we just couldn’t refuse. The public, the press, and the scientific community will all benefit from learning about the latest research and observational data that indicate climate science is anything but ‘settled.  10.  The IPCC and the mainstream media and environmental extremists who cite the IPCC uncritically really have become a joke in the scientific community.”  11.  In reference to the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ rebuttal of the IPCC’s assessment, just months before COP19 in Warsaw, Poland, Bast said:  A comprehensive critique of the IPPC’s alarmist reports is one more sign of the trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism. The benefits of a modest warming would outweigh the costs – by $8.4 billion a year in 1990 dollars by the year 2060, according to Robert Mendelsohn at Yale University.  12.  (Heartland Institute Speech) The purpose of this event is to promote and expand energy freedom in the United States, as outlined in President Donald Trump’s bold America First Energy Plan, a proposal first released during the 2016 presidential campaign. The president’s plan marks a decisive change in direction from the Obama administration’s ‘war on fossil fuels’ and focus on the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change.
  34.  MICHAEL BASTASCH:  BA. Political Science. Reporter for the conservative news site The Daily Caller on energy and environmental issues. Published over 3,000 articles on The Daily Caller and has regularly provided a platform for climate change skeptics. He has a long history working with organizations tied to Koch Industries. He went through the Koch Internship Program through the Charles Koch Institute in 2012, and around the same time also interned on government relations at the Koch-funded Heritage Foundation. A prior Research Associate at the Cascade Policy Institute, which the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) notes has close ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where Bastasch also interned in 2010. He also worked as a Koch Summer Fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University. Bastasch is one of hundreds of interns who have been funded by the Koch Brothers.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS  1.  On the 97% consensus among climate change scientists on man-made global warming, he quotes climate change denier Richard Lindzen to claim that consensus is not proof. Experts can all agree, but that doesn’t mean they are right.  2.  Most climate scientists likely do agree humans are contributing to warming in some way but that  still leaves us with a lot of possibilities. Is 51 percent of global warming attributable to humans or is 99 percent? Scientists can guess, but no one knows for sure.  3.  A survey by the {Koch-funded} George Mason University  found that found one/third of AMS members at the American Meteorological Society believe “mostly natural or only about half-caused by humans.  4.  He also defers to the climate scientists at the libertarian {Koch Funded} Cato Institute, which he claims have found that climate models incorrectly predicted global temperature rise for six decades.  5.
    Bastasch has repeatedly promoted the debunked theory of a “global warming pause” or “hiatus.   5.  NOAA Is Hiring Outside Experts To Review ‘Pause-Busting’ Global Warming Study,  …NOAA Expedited ‘Pause’-Busting Global Warming Study, Says Former Employee,  … Satellites Show The Global Warming ‘Pause’ Is Back,   Scientists Blame Volcano For the ‘Pause’ In Sea Level Rise   UN Claims There’s An ‘Alarming Rate’ Of Global Warming By Ignoring The 15-Year ‘Hiatus’ And El Niño     Satellites Show 21-Year ‘Hiatus’ In Global Warming Broken By Strong El Niño   Scientists Debunk Study Eliminating Global Warming ‘Hiatus   Paper: Scientists Still Can’t Explain The ‘Grand Hiatus’ In Global Warming    There Is No Hiatus’: IPCC Chief Denies The Satellite Records    NOAA’s ‘Hiatus’-Busting Study ‘Rushed’, Ignored ‘Scientific Processes’   Scientific ‘Consensus’ Can’t Agree On The Existence Of The Global Warming Hiatus    Study Resurrects The Global Warming ‘Hiatus    NOAA Fiddles With Climate Data To Erase The 15-Year Global Warming ‘Hiatus    Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends Nearly 18 And A Half Years    The ‘Pause’ In Global Warming: It’s Pure Luck,    Study: Global Warming ‘Pause’ Caused By Small Volcanic Eruptions,    EPA Chief: Pause In Global Warming ‘Doesn’t Represent Climate (a weird obsession with the pause issue).   6.  Regulations under the Obama administration had “zero projected impact” on global warming.   7.  Obama imposed $457 billion worth of climate regulations to avert an immeasurable amount of warming. That figure assumes climate models accurately project CO2-induced warming, but there’s a lot of evidence that most climate models have over-predicted warming for the last six decades. If the models are running hot, that actually means Obama-era regulations will avert even less warming than three-hundredths of a degree.   8.  Citing research by climate change contrarian Roger Pielke Jr.  On a global scale, there’s little to no evidence flooding events have been on the rise.  9.  The Obama administration and environmentalists have tried to make it seem like there are virtually no dissenting voices among scientists that mankind is causing the Earth to warm rapidly and towards a catastrophic end. But not all scientists are in lock-step with the White House on climate science
  35.  JOE BASTARDI:  BS Meteorology. Weather forecaster and climate change skeptic. Worked for AccuWeather from 1978 until 2011. Now Chief Forecaster for WeatherBELL Analytics LLC where Joseph D’Aleo works. D’Aleo is the climate change skeptic who founded Icecap.us. WeatherBELL offers an industry specific weather forecasting package for “energy companies, hedge funds, and related businesses. AccuWeather previously worked with the Global Climate Coalition, a group that strongly opposed greenhouse gas reduction policies when it was active.Bastardi is also a Senior Advisor at the American Tradition Institute  aka the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, a group denounced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science for contributing to an “environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  I don’t believe CO2 is a major player in determining global temperatures. I believe the sun, ocean cycles and stochastic events play a much more significant role.  2.  We will get our answer in the next 20 to 30 years. And we don’t have to panic. We don’t have to rush around because if I’m right, the earth’s temperature is going to cool a degree to a degree and a half Fahrenheit the next 20 to 30 years. And if it does, then that’s a game, set, match. We will know than that CO2 is not the driver of climate.  3. The connection between extreme weather and climate change is witchcraft.  4.  CO2 is not the “climate control knob. It would be the first time that man has ever been responsible for warming in recorded history. We go back ten million years, and if you’re going to actually believe what we have as the reference records, there’s no linkage to CO2 and temperature. Unless of course it’s one of these books, you gotta stand on your head and cross your eyes to look at.  5.  I have a problem when you tell me something that you exhale one-hundred times more than you inhale, and that plants love, and that’s always been around, and it’s just a very, very tiny part of the entire system, when you tell me that’s the climate control knob against the sun, the oceans, I say why is it now, when it’s been much higher before with colder temperatures.  6.  Midway through last year I said 2016 global temperatures would rise thanks to El Niño. I can forecast this because I don’t believe CO2 is a major player in determining global temperatures. I believe the sun, ocean cycles and stochastic events play a much more significant role.  7.  For me, above all, my stances on global warming are a product of my love for the weather. There is no goal for me. It’s about having another chance to do what I was made to do. And somehow, when I’m with people who I sense have the same ideas, it makes me stronger and more able to run toward what I was made for.  8.  Ref: Obama National Climate Assessment, “I think it’s just yet another piece to cause confusion and I think that the ‘so-called scientific debate’ is very silly now–It’s like a bunch of theologians arguing over how many angels you can stick on the head of a needle. When you’ve got a side that changes from global warming to climate change, which is intuitive—the climate has always been changing since the beginning of time—and then just begins to claim every answer is the correct answer, you often stand back, and I don’t care who you are, you have to question as to what the real motive is in this.  9.  CO2 cannot cause global warming. I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot – it literally cannot cause global warming.  10.  How do these people have any credibility? How do they get away with this? It’s mind boggling that its gotten to a point where the EPA is dictating policy based on what is an obvious fraud, or if you want to be gentle about it, creates enough doubt to back off.   11.  The Human-induced climate change theory contradicts what we call the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So to look for input of energy into the atmosphere, you have to come from a foreign source.  12.  The coming cooling of the planet overall will return it to where it was in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s.”  13.  Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet. Common sense dictates that what has happened before without man can happen again with man. Common sense would dictate that you not believe me, or any one else, but go look for yourself.  
  36. E. CALVIN BEISNER:  PhD History, Professor Emeritus of Historical Theology, Knox Theological Seminary. Founded a new Orthodox Presbyterian Church congregation. Served on the pastoral staff of Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church. Known as a leading evangelical climate-change skeptic. Founder of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and to resist the Green Dragon. Most influential evangelical anti-environmentalism activist in the United States. Testified before the U.S. Senate on climate change. Spoke International Conferences on Climate Change hosted by the Heartland Institute.  Gave talks on climate change to the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, and Fox News. Adjunct fellow of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Adjunct scholar of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.  Fellow of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.Associated with the Atlas Network.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. Do I believe that global warming is real? Absolutely. Sure. And I also believe that global cooling is real. Warming and cooling have gone back and forth cyclically throughout Earth’s history. Whether you’re somebody who believes in an Earth that’s billions of years old, or somebody who believes in an Earth that is perhaps eight or ten thousand years old, either way, Earth’s history shows us that warming and cooling have gone back and forth cyclically all through Earth’s history. So, do I believe global warming is real? Yes. So, I’m not a climate change denier. I’m certainly not a climate denier.  2.  Any warming that does occur will be so little we cannot detect it. And if it’s that little, then it’s not going to have any kind of disastrous effects.  3.  Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive man-made global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss.  4.  Energy companies should embrace CO2 emissions. CO2 is the elixir of life. The world needs more of it not less. And fossil fuel companies should stop apologizing for it and embracing trends of emissions reductions. It never ceases to amaze me that fossil fuel companies, and industries that use fossil fuels, boast of reducing CO2 emissions. That just means pleading guilty and then begging for delayed execution. They should be boasting all the benefits that the world gets not just from all that energy that you produce but also from a byproduct you give to all the world without charging them a penny.  5.  The utter absence of climate change from President Trump’s State of the Union Address stands in stark contrast to its prominence in all of former President Obama’s speeches. Whether climate alarmists here and abroad like it or not, their pet topic has fallen off the agenda for the highest official in the world’s most powerful nation and its biggest economy. Just as the Department of Defense no longer includes climate change as a national security risk, Trump no longer includes it as a risk to America or the world. His boosting of coal is a clear sign that the federal government’s love affair with diffuse, expensive, unreliable renewable energy sources like wind and solar is over. That’s good news for Americans, yes. But it’s especially good news for the poor in developing countries. Western environmentalist elites, dominating the United Nation’s Environment Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have bullied them for years against using coal to lift their people out of poverty. Trump’s policies give them cover to buck that bullying and put their people’s needs first.  6.  If we reduce our emissions of CO2 we will not make any significant difference in global average surface temperature. Poverty is a far greater risk than anything having to do with climate. Poverty kills. Wealth keeps people alive. One can’t help wondering if his Pope Francis’s embrace of climate alarmism rests on politics rather than science.   7.  Because President Obama never submitted the Paris treaty to the Senate for ratification, which the Constitution requires for the United States to be bound by any treaty, the U.S. is not a party to the treaty. Then, on the day Trump inaugurated, he should submit the treaty to the Senate, where it will die the ignominious death it deserves.  8.  Even if global warming contributed to rising temperature and declining rainfall, human activity needn’t have driven it. The computer models on which the IPCC depends simulate warming from rising atmospheric CO2 at two to three times the observed rate, and none simulated the absence of observed warming from early 1997 to late 2015. So they are tenuous reasons to believe human activity was the main driver. At most, human activity contributed a fraction of observed warming, so only a fraction of the rise in temperature and decline in rainfall, and only a fraction of that to the drought, and a fraction of that to the conflict over water.  9.  The idea of human-caused climate change is “un-biblical. The pope should back off. The Catholic church is correct on the ethical principles but has been misled on the science10.  Sad to say, despite Pope Francis’s best intentions, the policies he recommends to mitigate global warming would make it far more difficult to overcome poverty. And, ironically, by prolonging and even spreading poverty, those policies would put more of the natural environment at risk.
  37. ANDREW BOLT:  Went to college at the University of Adelaide.  A high-profile conservative Australian columnist, commentator and broadcaster. Opinion writer at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Herald Sun in Melbourne, with his columns often syndicated across the rest of the News Corporation Australia network of metropolitan tabloid newspapers online and in print. Prolific contributor to his own blog, hosted on News Corporation Australia websites, where he has posted hundreds of items on climate change and about what he calls warmists.  Promoted by News Corporation Australia as “Australia’s most-read political commentator. Promoter of the works of fellow climate science deniers. Host of  The Bolt Report, a weekly television panel show where he invites climate science contrarians as guests.  In 2016, the Bolt Report moved to Sky News as a nightly primetime program. STANCE ON CLIMATE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  I know that there is a debate about humans causing the warming of the planet – that’s all I am prepared to say. I’m not a scientist but when someone tells me that all the scientists agree, I say no they don’t. They all agree that there’s a tendency for human emissions to heat the planet, but whether that’s responsible for all the heating is an open question. But I must say that once it was confidently predicted that there was run away warming and now we have had a pause for 16 years. Now please explain that.  2.  At the The Mass Delusion of Climate Change event in Melbourne, featuring climate change denier Vaclav Klaus, “We are talking about a pretend tax to solve a pretend problem that no-one believes will be solved by this and we all have to pay attention.  3.  Defended Peter Ridd, a former JCU professor that claimed he was fired for his belief that global warming is not threatening the Great Barrier Reef, by saying “Ridd has been fired for questioning claims by colleagues that global warming is destroying the Great Barrier Reef“.  4.  We have politicians that are today destroying our cheap and reliable electricity system and driving coal fired power stations out of business because of claims that man’s emissions of carbon dioxide are heating the world dangerously. These are driving up your power bills and it’s threatening to shut down huge coal mines.” He also claimed, “We have not seen anything like the kind of warming that was predicted.  5.  No system that forces us to use more expensive green power, and less reliable, will save us money. The only answer is to stop this whole madness now.  6. We hear of activist teachers misusing their position to push their politics of the Left – anti-capitalism, pro illegal immigration, global warming alarmism. We don’t hear of activist teachers pushing conservative politics or climate scepticism.  7.  Thunberg’s disorders help to explain her near-mystical air of certainty, but also why she’s a false prophet. Bolt wrote the same issue of the Herald Sun where the adjudication was published. Forms of Asperger’s to not ‘really care about social codes’ – or not fully understand them. That often means not tolerating compromises with other people or their views.  8.  The Guardian, Australian Press Council found that Bolt’s attempts to “diminish the credibility of Greta Thunberg on the basis of her disabilities was of no public interest.
  38. JOHN BOLTON:  Attorney and former US Ambassador to the UN under George Bush. BA Yale and also Yale Law School. Author of “Surrender is Not An Option”, Associate at Covington & Burling law firm in Washington. National security advisor to President Donald Trump.  Connected to some of President Trump’s biggest financiers. He received millions through his Super PAC from billionaire businessman Robert Mercer, the man who bankrolled the Trump campaign. Senior fellowship at the American Enterprise Institute, which is funded by fossil fuel magnates the Koch brothers known for funding climate science denial. Bolton expressed contempt for the EU and support for Brexit which would allow the UK to slash regulations and strike its own free trade deal with the US. He has strong ties with the Leave campaign in the UK. He is a pro-guns, pro-war advocate.  Described in the Financial Times as “possibly Washington’s most aggressive hawk.” He has held roles in a number of right-wing think tanks and organisations including the National Rifle Association and the Gatestone Institute, which is known for spreading misleading and false anti-Muslims news. Senior advisor at the Freedom Capital Investment Management company to advise the firm on international security, and financial and political risk. The company boasted about its portfolio in oil, coal, and the gun industries and claimed that the Paris Agreement would have a negative impact on the US economy. He rejected fossil fuel divestment.  Developed strategies to “survive UN-driven assaults on the economy such as emission reduction. Regular contributor and political commentator on Fox News.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1. The UN climate talks USE global warming as an excuse to establish supra-national structures of governance. “The overall effect on climate [of the Paris Agreement] by any reputable scientific analysis is zero. This is really a global governance issue.  2. Bolton hailed President Trump’s intention to withdraw the US form the Paris Agreement “an excellent decision.  3.   About Barack Obama’s speech to the UN climate summit in Paris:  Even if you buy the President’s beliefs about man-made global warming, the outcome of this Paris Agreement will be insignificant.  They are attending a church service about climate change and he was just giving the last sermon.  4.  I am perfectly prepared to accept that Earth’s temperature is warming and perfectly prepared to accept that part of the increase in temperature is because of human activity. But the issue of climate change is being used by some politicians as a means to “pursue greater governmental control over energy policy and human activity.  5.  Environmentalists would have exactly the same policies if there were global cooling instead of global warming. They are fundamentally statist and that is the real underlying issue.   6.  President Trump’s intention to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement is an excellent decision. The Paris Accord is a self-licking ice cream cone. In the short-term its existence would have next to no effect. The danger was in the longer term. What they wanted was an agreement on anything to create the foundation for what they are really interested in which is more international control over national decision-making. This is really a global governance issue, which the Europeans just love and Barack Obama just loves.  7.  We are not going to engage in more blue smoke and mirrors in order to get to more international control.   8.  The fundamental point is that we could be dealing with global cooling here. If the overall objectives were to put more carbon emissions to increase the earth’s temperature, these people would be asking for the same structures. The overall objective is more international governance and less national sovereignty.   9.  As a right-wing libertarian, Bolton has repeatedly advocates for a low-tax, low-regulation society which would include cutting food and environmental regulations. For example, in an interview with The Objective Standard,  “I think that, in terms of choice of government, what we should look for is a government that enhances the possibility of individual freedom and individual activity and reduces the potential for collective government action“.
  39. CHRISTOPHER BOOKER:  Studied history at Cambridge University.  Journalist, author, and columnist for The Sunday Telegraph. He passed away at the age 81 in July 2019.  He opposed the scientific consensus on numerous issues including global warming, the link between second-hand smoke and cancer, and the negative health effects of asbestos. Booker claimed white asbestos “poses no measurable risk to health.” Author of:  The Real Global Warming Disaster. This book is  described by The Observer as “the definitive climate sceptics’ manual.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  The late 20th century rise in temperatures, which set off the warming scare in the first place, has simply not continued. The pressure to keep the panic going dies away a little further with each passing year.  2.  Paris marks a historic turning point. It is the moment when the political panic over climate change finally begins to collide with inescapable realities.  3.  Although CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued rising, it has become clearer than ever that global temperatures are no longer following suit. The human link to warming is not just being seriously exaggerated but even deliberately manipulated, to produce findings which the data simply do not justify.  4. The Paris Climate Agreement is “all smoke and mirrors” “In reality, the Paris agreement is no more than a vainglorious act of collective wishful thinking, orchestrated to fool the world into thinking that something of significance had actually been achieved. Nothing said or done in Paris will have the slightest effect on the world’s climate.  5.  When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.   6.  When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.   7.  The proselytisers for man-made global warming have long exercised a tight stranglehold over the contents of Wikipedia.  8.  The scientific evidence to support their belief that inhaling other people’s smoke causes cancer simply does not exist.  9.  During a heatwave in the UK, Booker wrote an article in the Daily Mail denying climate change had any role to play in that heat wave. “We shall continue to have abnormally hot summers from time to time, just as we did in 1976 and 1846, way back before global warming was invented.  10.  In a GWPF report: Global Warming is case study in groupthink.
  40. JOHN CHRISTY:  Ph.D. Atmospheric Science. Director of the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Alabama State Climatologist. Associated with climate change skeptic Roy Spencer, who is is best known for jointly developing a satellite temperature record. Christy also collaborated with Spencer on a George C. Marshall Institute Roundtable discussion on climate change in April 2006. Christy noted that the he and Spencer have been described as “swimming upstream against the climate change debate.  Testified in Congress on numerous occasions against the mainstream scientific views on man-made climate change including testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, House Committee on Government Reform, House Ways and Means Committee, and others.    STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS.  1.  In The Wall Street Journal: I’m sure the majority of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.   2.  The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.  3.  We are not morally bad people for taking carbon and turning it into the energy that offers life to humanity in a world that would otherwise be brutal. On the contrary, we are good people for doing so.   4.  Carbon dioxide makes things grow. The world used to have five times as much carbon dioxide as it does now. Plants love this stuff. It creates more food. CO2 is not the problem … There is absolutely no question that carbon energy provides with longer and better lives.   5.  I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors and about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.   6.  If you choose to make regulations about carbon dioxide, that’s OK. You as a state can do that; you have a right to do it. But it’s not going to do anything about the climate. And it’s going to cost, there’s no doubt about that.  7.   It is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response.  8.As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that’s certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get.  9We utilize energy from carbon, not because we are bad people, but because it is the affordable foundation on which the profound improvements in our standard of living have been achieved – our progress in health and welfare.   10.  I am a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.   11.  It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn’t been increased in the past century.   12.  Presentation to the Global Warming Policy Forum:  The weather we really care about isn’t changing, and Mother Nature has many ways on her own to cause her climate to experience considerable variations in cycles. If you think about how many degrees of freedom are in the climate system, what a chaotic nonlinear, dynamical system can do with all those degrees of freedom, you will always have record highs, record lows, tremendous storms and so on. That’s the way that system is.   Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler appointed Christy to the agency’s Science Advisory Board, putting him in position to take an active role in guiding agency policies and regulations.  John Abraham, a professor of thermal science, writes at The Guardian about additional errors identified in Roy Spencer and John Christy’s temperature estimates. According to Abraham, Spencer and Christy’s claims that troposphere and stratosphere temperatures have not been rising are wrong: They errantly include stratosphere temperatures in their lower atmosphere readings; and they have incorrect temperature calibration on the satellites,” Abraham writes.  He also points to a recent paper that had questioned Christy and Spencer’s decision to use preliminary data in their congressional testimony while it was still in the peer review stage: [44]  At present, the UAH v6 results are preliminary and a fifth revision has now been released as v6beta5 . The release of the UAH version 6 products before publication is unusual, and Spencer recently stated that a manuscript has been submitted for a peer-reviewed publication. While some may find it scientifically inappropriate to utilize UAH v6b6 data before publication, these data have already been presented in testimony during congressional hearings before both the U.S. House and Senate and have also appeared on websites and in public print articles,” Abraham quotes the January 207 paper. Abraham adds, “let’s not be deluded into thinking these satellites are more accurate than thermometers.  John Christy was a witness in a house committee hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method” chaired by Lamar Smith. The hearing also featuring testimony from Judith Curry, Michael Mann, and Roger Pielke, Jr. The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearings have turned into theater to stage climate science denial. Michael Mann was the only witness on the committee to represent the 97% consensus view that humans cause climate change.
  41. JOHN COLEMAN: deceased.  Meteorologist, virtuoso weather forecaster, and founder of the the Weather Channel.  He spent half a century in the trenches of TV weather forecasting and passed away in 2018. He had retired in 2014 after working for over 20 years for KUSI  San Diego. Parted ways with his business partner over losses and staff morale. Coleman was skeptical of man-made climate change and aired his views on CNN, Fox News Channel, Showtime and Pen & Teller: B.S. In an interview on Fox News’ “Red Eye,” he described Fox as the “only cable network that will put us on the air.  Participated in fund raising for CFACT, a climate denier organization. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new Climate Hustle movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.   2. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.  3.  Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.   4.  At the Heartland Institute: The ‘tons and tons of carbon we are spewing into the atmosphere every day, as Al Gore puts it, are actually a good thing. In his rants that the Earth will become uninhabitable, former Vice President Gore is referring to the carbon dioxide gas being released into the atmosphere as we power our civilization with fossil fuels. However, it turns out that as the ‘greenhouse gases’ we release combine with nature’s carbon dioxide to make the planet greener and greener. Scientists have worked hard to learn ways to process coal so it burns cleaner. And they have worked diligently to improve our coal burning power plants to eliminate any particulate pollution. Coal continues to be essential to provide the finer points of our civilization such as electric power for our computers, smart phone and phone networks, lights and air conditioning. So since the invisible, odorless gas carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is making the Earth greener and greener. scrapping the so-called Clean Air Plan of the Obama EPA was an excellent step forward.   5.  Defended Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle film after Bill Nye described it as “not in our national interest and the world’s interest. I have always been amazed that anyone would pay attention to Bill Nye, a pretend scientist in a bow tie. As a man who has studied the science of meteorology for over 60 years and received the Meteorologist of the Year award, I am offended that Nye gets the press and media attention he does and I am rooting for the ‘Climate Hustle’ film to become a huge hit bigger than ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Al Gore.   6.  As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate.   7.  The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.   8.  Many people don’t accept my position that there is no significant man-made global warming because I am simply a Television Meteorologist without a Ph.D. I understand that.   9.  Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990’s to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental-extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the ‘research’ to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims.   10.  The increase in our atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th and early 21st centuries has produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. There is absolutely no correlation between the increase in CO2 and average worldwide or US temperatures. And, predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and resulting increases in minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge or have any scientific basis. On the other hand, increased carbon dioxide has markedly increased plant growth. Forest growth and farm crop output per acre have grown proportionally with increased atmospheric CO2 that is a key to photosynthesis in plants.”    11.  Environmental extremist and politicians teamed up with environmentalist journalists to create this wild ‘scientific’ scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.   12.  Coleman wrote an introduction to a fundraising mailer for CFACT to influence students in America’s schools and college campuses. Coleman’s introduction downplays the dangers of climate change. Unlike so many of my colleagues, who are caught up in climate change hysteria, I am confident that ‘man-made’ global warming does not pose a catastrophic threat to the future of mankind and the Earth itself.  I’ve studied this subject for decades. I know beyond any doubt the science behind the global warming frenzy is based on a completely failed theory. There is nothing alarming in any of the actual evidence.  13.  Politicians and Radical Green activists step over the bounds of what science actually reveals and into the realms of political advocacy and demagoguery.
  42. PIERS CORBYN:   B.Sc. in Physics, Imperial College London.  M.Sc. in Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, University of London. An astrophysicist who regularly speaks at climate science denial events. He is founder and director of the weather forecasting company WeatherAction. Consulted by Boris Johnson for climate policy advice.  Corbyn bases his forecasts on activity happening on the surface of the sun. He claims the sun is the main driver behind changes in global temperature, rather than human activities and the burning of fossil fuels. His younger brother is Jeremy Corbyn MP, the leader of the UK’s Labour Party. There is no indication that Jeremy Corbyn shares Piers’ views on climate change. Corbyn characterises climate science as a tool of “globalists” and sees George Soros as a kingpin in a global movement of “globalist elites” who are using climate science as a cover for de-industrialising the West. He has appeared at events alongside conspiracy theorists, including Holocaust denier Nicholas Kollerstrom.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  Rejected the findings of a recent UN report from the IPCC. This report is a pack of lies, it is anti-scientific nonsense based on fraud which is intended to regiment people into paying more in carbon taxes and help the oil companies increase profits by increasing prices. CO2 has no effect on the temperatures. The levels of CO2 are driven by temperatures.   2.  I was thinking of using the weather to discover what the sun had been doing in the past, but then I thought, that’s just stupid: why not use the sun to predict what the weather will do in the future?   3. The warming that we are told about is 100 per cent fake. On climate change science and policy It’s a massive ideological tool by the globalists who are under massive pressure right now to justify the de-industrialisation agenda making super profits for the biggest corporations and more and more money for the super rich.   4.  President Barack Obama’s climate change action plan is part of a globalisation agenda to export jobs from the West and generally lower living standards worldwide to benefit the super elite.   5.  For one thing science doesn’t do settled opinions. And for another they are all wrong.   6.  Former prime minister Margaret Thatcher plotted to popularise and endorse the science of man-made climate change, as a way of converting Britain from coal to nuclear power, to defeat striking miners.  7.  There is a network of climate science denying politicians who turn to him for advice. As for example, Graham Stringer, of Labour, is sympathetic. Sammy Wilson DUP, a number of Tories, Boris is very sympathetic. Now I think we have George Galloway which is significant, because he can be very persuasive.   8.  Response to the claim that the ten hottest years in the UK had occurred since 2002: “Their observation of this extra number of warm years since 2002 is that they’ve had an extra amount of climate fraud since 2002. This campaign to control climate by changing CO2 levels won’t achieve anything. It’s not there to control climate, it’s there to control you.   9.Prime Minister Boris Johnson previously supported what I said and wrote some very positive things about my forecasts.   10.   At an event in the Houses of Parliament organised by DUP MP Sammy Wilson on behalf of “Repeal the Act” a group that argues the “climate is always changing, Corbyn said the jet stream is to blame for all bad weather (without mentioning the melting Arctic), declared war on termites, and sent a hearty congratulatory message to the Heartland Institute’s annual climate denial conference in Las Vegas. Also at the event were University of Sussex climate economist Richard Tol, fossil fuel funded former Conservative MP Peter Lilley, and Conservative MP for Monmouth David Davies.    11.Signatory to an open letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon calling for the UN to abandon the CO2-based theory of global warming and to nullify its former recommendations.   12.  The assertion that the recent rapid rise of CO2 is unique and dangerous is both deceptive and irrelevant because CO2 does not drive the world’s climate. There is clearly no evidence for the CO2-based theory of global warming. Indeed, there is only evidence against it.
  43. SUSAN CROCKFORD:  Doctorate from the University of Victoria.  Author of the website Polar Bear Science where she describes herself as a “zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals.” Principal of the private consulting company, Pacific Identifications Inc. She writes about polar bears at her website “Polar Bear Science”. While she does not study them in the field, she claims she is a “different kind of polar bear expert” and that “having a different background means I know things they do not and this makes my contribution valuable and valid.”Crockford, has not published in any peer-reviewed journals on polar bears. Crockford consistently claims that her work shows polar bears are not being endangered by global warming. AShe has written a number of articles related to early dog domestication but her polar bear articles are found only on her own blog and in regular reports at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).  She says that  her GWPF reports are peer reviewed. However, an undercover Greenpeace investigation cast doubt on the validity of the GWPF’s internal review process, noting that only the group’s internal advisory council generally reviewed documents, rather than the genuine, rigorous and often anonymized peer review of a traditional scientific journal. Crockford receives $750 per month from the Heartland Institute, to work on their NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) project. Crockford has also spoken at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC). Crockford refused to discuss the payments when contacted by a University of Victoria student newspaper. Crockford regularly produces studies for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a think tank based in the UK run by Nigel Lawson with the purpose of combating what the foundation describes as “extremely damaging and harmful policies” designed to mitigate climate change.In November 2017, a study in the journal BioScience of discussions about polar bears on climate science denial blogs found that Crockford’s website was cited in about 80 percent of all the posts analyzed.  Ian Stirling, who has spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says Crockford has “zero” authority on the subject.  If you tell a lie big enough and often enough, people will begin to believe it, said Ian Stirling. The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert. Stirling co-authored a 2017 paper in the journal BioScience looking at a tactic used by climate change denial blogs to attack the symbols of climate change, rather than the science behind it. The study found by examining 45 blogs that deny or question climate science, 80 percent of those blogs referenced a single site with reference to polar bears: that of Susan Crockford. Because this evidence is so overwhelming, it would be virtually impossible to debunk; the main strategy of denier blogs is therefore to focus on topics that are showy and in which it is therefore easy to generate public interest,” the authors wrote:  Proponents of creationism and intelligent design use the same strategy: Instead of providing scientific evidence in favor of their opinions, they instead focus selectively on certain lines of evidence for evolution and attempt to cast doubt on them. Crockford responded by sending a letter to the editors of Bioscience “requesting retraction of the shoddy and malicious paper by Harvey et al.” Crockford claims to have published “peer-reviewed” studies at GWPF. The group’s unofficial peer review process differs from that of major academic journals. As revealed by an undercover Greenpeace investigation, articles would be submitted inside the GWPF’s Advisory Council and other selected scientists reviewing the work, rather than presenting it to an academic journal. Sense About Science, a UK charitable trust, describes the danger of such a review process (despite having Matt Ridley, a member of GWPF’s Advisory Council, on its own board)Sometimes organisations or individuals claim to have put their studies through peer review when, on inspection, they have only shown it to some colleagues. Such claims are usually made in the context of a campaign directed at the public or policy makers, as a way of trying to give scientific credibility to certain claims in the hope that a non-scientific audience will not know the difference.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  In a speech to the Canadian climate science denying group, Friends of Science: I’m here today to talk about an important example of the failed science that’s used to convince uninformed people that burning fossil fuels has had and will continue to have a harmful effect on the planet.  2.  In a GWPF paper titled “Ten Good Reasons Not to Worry About Polar Bears:  Global temperatures have not risen in a statistically-significant way in the last 16 years which suggests that the record sea ice lows of the last few years are probably not primarily due to CO2 -caused increases in global temperatures. Citing a  GWPF paper and numbers provided by climate change denier Roy Spencer as evidence.  3.Speech at the Heartland Institute’s Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12):  I am here today to give you an example of the failed science that is used to convince uninformed people that burning fossil fuels has had and will continue to have harmful effects on the planet  4.  Quoted in the media:  On almost every measure, things are looking good for polar bears.
  44. JUDITH CURRY:   PhD, Geophysical Sciences: Former chairman (2002 – 2014) and former professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Resigned from her position at Georgia Tech citing the “craziness” of climate science, and plans to focus on her private business. She continues to write and speak prolifically on the climate change issue and run the blog Climate Etc.  Has been invited by Republicans to testify at climate change hearings regarding alleged uncertainties regarding man-made climate change. She has also participated in a variety of blogs in the skeptical science community including Climate Audit, the Air Vent.  She has been criticized by climate scientists for her climate outreach in the blogosphere based on assertions not necessarily supported by the evidence: particularly that the climate always changes.Scientist Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, points out that Climate doesn’t change all by itself for no good reason. Something has to force it. Fossil Fuel Funding:  When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was Curry’s response:  I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1. Wrote on her blog Climate Etc. that her views on climate change are best summarized by her Congressional Testimony on the President’s Climate Action Plan that:  Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change. The hiatus in global warming since 1998 reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide. Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century.  2. Climate hoaxes: perhaps it is NOT Donald Trump’s whose pants are on fire. Trump’s election provided an opportunity for a more rational energy and climate policy.   3.  Global temperatures are rising, but the bigger question is whether humans to blame for that.   4.  Temperatures have been on the rise for more than 200 years. And that can’t all be human caused.   5.  E&E News notes that Curry’s viewpoint “is not accepted by most climate scientists. They point to corresponding rises in greenhouse gases and temperatures as evidence that human activities are a key driver of warming.   6.  The hottest topic in climate research is the observation that global average surface temperature, as well as satellite observations of temperatures in the atmosphere, has shown little or no warming during the 21st century.   7.  With reference to record-breaking heat waves in Western Europe, and whether they should be blamed on man-made global warming, does it make more sense to provide air conditioning or to limit CO2 emissions. I vote for more air conditioning in these susceptible regions.   8.  The main problem is we are putting the policy cart before the scientific horse.   9.  Relying on global international treaty to solve the problem – which I do not think would really solve the problem even if it was implemented – is politically unviable and economically unviable.   10.  Even on the timescale of decade or two, we could end up very surprised on how the climate plays out and it might not be getting warmer like the IPCC says. We don’t know what’s going to happen. All other things being equal – yes – more carbon dioxide means warmer, but all other things are never equal. We just don’t know. I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales.   11.  I am broadly concerned about the slow death of free speech, but particularly in universities and also with regards to the climate change debate.   12.  If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet. However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate requires that we understand natural climate variability properly. Until we understand natural climate variability better, we cannot reliably infer sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing or understand its role in influencing extreme weather events. While 20th century climate change is most often explained in terms of external forcing, with natural internal variability providing high frequency ‘noise,’ the role of large multidecadal oscillations is receiving increasing attention.   13.  The manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science, elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus, and motivating actions by the consensus scientists and their supporters that have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC.
  45. RUPERT DARWALL:   Economics and History, Cambridge University.  Consulting Director with the White House Writers Group, where he specializes in the intersection of public policy and finance.  Expert at the Centre for Policy Studies, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation.  Prolific writer for the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Prospect, and Financial Times.  Senior Fellow at the RealClear Foundation.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  It was characteristically bold of President Obama to speak of the overwhelming judgment of science on global warming, given that we are well into the second decade of average global temperatures that indicate no statistically significant warming trend. The temperature standstill was not predicted by climate scientists, leaving them struggling to rationalize its significance.  Even if climate science is as robust as the president asserts, in the absence of a global agreement on carbon emissions, mandates and subsidies to produce renewable energy will have negligible impact on global temperatures and on the weather. A 1998 study on the effect of the Kyoto Protocol estimated that, if fully implemented, it would delay the rise in global temperatures by 4 to 14 years over the course of a century and have a minimal effect on the rise of sea levels. However, the cost of the attempt would be at the expense of the competitiveness of American business and American taxpayers and consumers.   2.  If climate scientists are really as confident in their understanding of the climate as the IPCC’s 95% confidence headline figure is meant to suggest, they would put a firm date by when the pause must end and temperatures bounce back to what the IPCC claims is the long-term upward trend. All too predictably, the IPCC avoids such a hard-edged test. The body’s flagrant disregard for the Inter-Academy Council’s findings and its reluctance to address the 15-year warming pause are symptomatic of a failure of leadership. The conclusion is unavoidable: The IPCC is unreformable and the Fifth Assessment Report should be the IPCC’s last.   3.  The environmental laws of the 1970s were meant to clean up America’s air and water. They were about curbing local pollution and making the environment better for Americans. Cutting carbon-dioxide emissions is completely different. Unless the rest of the world joins in, it’s pointless for America to act by itself. Remember, we’re talking about global warming. Acting alone, the sacrifice of blue-collar jobs is entirely about political symbolism and appeasing wealthy green activists.   4.  Might it be that it was Ronald Reagan and not Barack Obama who began to slow the rise of the seas? That is one conclusion that could be drawn from a new paper by Canadian physicist Qing-Bin Lu. Instead of carbon dioxide emissions, Mr. Lu argues that ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halocarbons caused global warming. Thanks to the Reagan administration and the 1987 Montreal Protocol, CFCs have been phased out by developed countries. Global temperatures peaked around 2002 and they are set to gradually fall over the next five to seven decades. Upholders of the consensus argue that increased carbon dioxide is the only way to explain rising global temperatures. Now there is a competing explanation, with a chronology that better fits the evidence.   5.  The coronavirus pandemic showed that climate change was not a real emergency. The global warming estimates produced by the Toronto climate conference in 1988 has not proven true. Climate change is on par with the environmental change humans have always adapted to.   6.  {with respect to the Covid pandemic} One thing hasn’t changed and won’t change: Catastrophizing climate change for political ends. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the inability to distinguish between a genuine crisis and an imagined one in the midst of the worst pandemic in a century is a manifestation of a collective psychological disorder.   7.  His book Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex. “the science is settled. We must act” is “unscientific in its premise and authoritarian in its consequence.   8.  There is no rational justification for policies favoring renewables, and there is no objective cost-benefit analysis that could justify Obama’s target for renewable energy.  (citing Bill Gates) current renewables are dead-end technologies. Renewables are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology is ‘beyond astronomical. Obama’s renewable target is a triumph for Shumacher’s Buddhist economics—which amounts to being poor and staying poor. It does not produce jobs, growth or prosperity.
  46. JAMES DELINGPOLE:   BA English Literature , Oxford University.  Columnist and anti-windfarm activist. Formerly blogged for The Daily Telegraph and now writes for The Spectator and the far-right news site, Breitbart. Describes himself as a “libertarian conservative” and climate change skeptic. He says that his dislikes include the global warming myth and the European Socialist Superstate. Winner of the 2010 Bastiat Prize for online journalism. DeSmog says this Prize is funded by Exxon.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  Meanwhile in the real world, no convincing evidence whatsoever has emerged to support the threadbare theory that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the planet to warm in ways which are dangerous or unprecedented. Still, the theory rests entirely on computer models which, increasingly, appear to diverge from the actual observed data.   2.  Climate change is the biggest scam in the history of the world – a $1.5 trillion-a-year conspiracy against the taxpayer, every cent, penny and centime of which ends in the pockets of the wrong kind of people, none of which goes towards a cause remotely worth funding, all of it a complete and utter waste.   3.  In 2019: There has been no global warming since 1998.   4.  It really doesn’t matter in what order you rearrange the Climategate emails. You get the same result every time: a bunch of second-raters bullying dissenters, troughing lavish grants, racking up air miles on conference freebies, cooking the books, manipulating the evidence, torturing the data till it screams in order to make man-made global warming look like a much more significant and well-understood problem than it actually is.   5.  Sir David Attenborough had “driven walruses off cliffs and then blamed it on climate change” in a documentary on climate change.    6.  Not only do they assiduously promote the non-existent climate change problem but they also shill on behalf of the extremely damaging solution: renewables or ‘clean’ energy.   7.  Lauded Donald Trump for his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement.
  47. PAUL DRIESSEN:  BA in geology and field ecology, Lawrence University.  JD University of Denver, Accreditation by the Public Relations Society of America. Senior Policy Advisor for CFACT. Associated with other organizations devoted to climate denial: Heartland Institute, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE), the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.  Founding member of Climate Exit (Clexit), Author of “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power Black Death”. where he describes the negative aspects of the environmental movement. Prolific author promoting the use of fossil fuels and downplaying the risks of climate change. He holds that the environmental movement has become intolerant in its views, inflexible in its demands, unwilling to recognize our tremendous strides in protecting the environment, and insensitive to the needs of billions of people who lack the food, electricity, safe water, healthcare and other basic necessities that we take for granted. Formerly worked for United States Senate, Department of the Interior, and an energy trade association.    STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  No Real-World evidence supports a ‘dangerous man-made climate change’ thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us.    2.  Climate has always changed. It is far better to have energy, technology, modern housing and wealth to adapt to, survive, recover from and even thrive amid inevitable warming, cooling and weather events, than to forego these abilities on the absurd assumption that humans can control climate and weather and be forced to confront nature’s onslaughts the way previous generations had.   3.  Numerous studies demonstrate that there is no credible evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. Moreover, rising CO2 emissions from China, India and other rapidly developing nations vastly exceed any imaginable.   4. Climate Armageddon claims are being used to justify malignant policies that have no rational basis.   5.  Global average temperatures peaked in 1998 and since have cooled slightly, despite steadily rising CO2 levels.   6.  Except in its Western Peninsula, Antarctica is gaining ice, and Antarctic sea ice reached an all-time high in 2007. Arctic ice is seasonably normal, and in 2008 the Northern Hemisphere was covered by more snow than ever before.   7.  Millions of Americans appear perfectly willing to sacrifice their livelihoods, living standards, liberties and country on the altar of man-made climate Armageddon. Are they insane? Are they on drugs?   8.  Fracking-induced earth tremors are akin to vibrations from a dump truck on your street. No groundwater contamination has ever been traced to hydraulic fracturing. Methane in tap water results from water wells improperly drilled through gas-prone rock formations and was an issue long before fracking. Air emissions are below what we find in residential neighborhoods during non-rush hours.   9.  The EPA’s war on coal has already cost thousands of jobs in mines, power plants and dependent businesses. Low oil prices amid a tepid, over-regulated, climate-fixated, crony-corporatist American, European and international economy have already killed thousands of US oil patch jobs.   10.  Climate Hustle is the perfect antidote to the destructive, demoralizing climate alarmism that dominates political decisions and obsesses the Obama White House and EPA.   11.  No presidency has ever come close to the Obama Administration in employing the rule to advance its ideologies and agendas. No industry has been so favored as renewable energy over the past seven years. No sector has been so thoroughly vilified and subjugated as fossil fuels during that period.   12.  A couple degrees warmer would be good for humanity and planet, especially with more plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide in the air. But a couple degrees colder would bring serious adverse consequences for habitats, wildlife, agriculture and humanity.   13.  Not using fossil fuels is tantamount to not using energy. It is economic suicide and eco-manslaughter.   14.  What a difference that extra 120 ppm has made for plants, and for animals and humans that depend on them. The more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the more it is absorbed by plants of every description and the faster and better they grow, even under adverse conditions like limited water, extremely hot air temperatures, or infestations of insects, weeds and other pests. As trees, grasses, algae and crops grow more rapidly and become healthier and more robust, animals and humans enjoy better nutrition on a planet that is greener and greener.   15.  Imposing excessive new regulations, or closing coal-fired power plants, would produce few health or environmental benefits. But it would exact huge costs on society – and bring factories, offices and economies to a screeching halt in states that are 80-98% dependent on coal: Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.    16.  Had today’s technophobic zealots and environmental activists been in charge in previous centuries, we would have to roll human progress back to the Middle Ages and beyond, since even fire and the wheel pose risks, and none would have passed the “absolute safety” test the zealots demand. Putting them in charge now would mean an end to progress, and perpetual deprivation for inhabitants of developing nations.   17.  If the world buys into this crazy scheme, we all belong in straitjackets. It’s time for politicians, environmentalists and industry promoters to stop selling offshore wind (and onshore wind and solar power) as magic pixie dust to replace fossil fuels.   18.  Personal choices and living standards will be sacrificed in any attempt to transition off of fossil fuels. Renewable energy sources caused far more environmental damage than any of the fossil fuel energy sources they would supposedly replace.   19.  We do not face a climate emergency. Computer models certainly predict all kinds of catastrophes. But both the models and the increasingly hysterical assertions of planetary chaos are completely out of touch with reality.   20.  So I ask, are these UN people simply incapable of seeing the chasm between their flowery sustainability rhetoric and their anti mining, anti-fossil fuel attitudes? Or are they just lying, power hungry tyrants, or are they both? I don’t know. The verdict is still out. Those policies are unjust, inhumane, and in eco imperialistic and lethal, that can no longer be tolerated. And in fact, I’ll go a step further, and I don’t say this lightly or casually, the climate change sustainability agenda that is being advanced by these activists and bureaucrats is eco-fascist, totalitarian and racist.
  48. FREEMAN DYSON:  Professor of physics at Cornell University since 1951. Deceased.  Retired physics professor known for his work in the area of electrodynamics. Formerly professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He passed away at age 96 in 2020. Most useful contribution to science was the unification of the three versions of quantum electrodynamics. Did not have a Ph.D. but held honorary degrees from a number of universities, and has received numerous prizes for his work. Dyson’s coming ‘out of the closet to comment on global warming in 2009 saying essentially that whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants grow.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  CO2 is beneficial due to greening vegetation and that continuing to burn fossil fuels will probably do us good.   2.  The fact is, carbon dioxide will increase. We will continue to burn oil and coal, and probably it does us good. The Earth will get greener as a result.  3.  CO2 is so beneficial it would be crazy to try to reduce it. Man-made climate change is, on the whole, a good thing.
  49. DON EASTERBROOK:   Ph.D., Geology.   Professor Emeritus of Glacial Geology and Environmental and Engineering Geology at Western Washington University. Editor of the book “Evidence-Based Climate Science”.  The book claims to produce data that is counter-global-warming evidence.  The book includes contributions from co-authors Steve Goddard, Joseph D’Aleo, Nils-Axel Mörner, David Archibald, Nicola Scafetta, Christopher and Monckton.  Regular speaker at the Heartland Institute’s International Conferences on Climate Change. The Heartland Institute receives millions of dollars from the fossil fuel industry.  Appeared before the Washington State Senate Committee on Climate Change to argue that the data had been tampered with by NOAA and NASA, that CO2 cannot possibly cause global warming. and that Global warming ended in 1998.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  Global warming ended in 1998. There has been no global warming in 15 years.   2.  The Antarctic ice sheet is not melting. The main ice sheet is in fact growing.   3.  CO2 cannot possibly cause global warming.   4.  Severe storms are not more frequent.  5.  (in 2008) We’re in for about 25 – 30 years of global cooling.   6.  We are entering a solar cycle of much reduced sunspots, very similar to that which accompanied the change from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, which virtually all scientists agree was caused by solar variation. Thus, we seem to be headed for cooler temperatures as a result of reduced solar irradiance.   7.  The Paris Climate treaty, which doesn’t have any power at all, intends to “establish a global socialistic government run by the UN with no elections or accountability.   8.  There is this massive fraudulent corruption of data by NOAA and NASA.
  50. ALEX EPSTEIN:  B.A., Philosophy, Duke University.  Founder and Director of the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), a for-profit think tank he founded in 2011. Its mission is to inspire Americans to embrace industrial progress as a cultural ideal. Blogger at Master Resource, a Free Market Energy Blog.  Past fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, that has received funding from the KochBrothers.  His stated purpose is to educate the public about the incredibly positive role energy and industry, particularly the oil industry, play in their lives.  Has written articles in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Business Daily, The Objective Standard and numerous other publications largely on the subjects of energy and industrial policy. Epstein also hosts a monthly podcast titled “Power Hour” that features “leading energy thinkers” including climate change deniers Richard Lindzen and Steve Milloy.  Regularly appears in conservative talk radio and television programs to promote the idea that industrial development is the best way to improve the environment. A popular speaker at corporations and universities such as Stanford, Duke, Rice, and UCLA. His speeches describe ways to combat the formidable attacks by environmentalists on industrial progress.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  I am actually an outspoken global warming affirmer. The real point of contention is not whether there is some global warming and whether human beings have some climate impact, but whether warming is a problem and  whether fossil fuel energy should be restricted.   2.  When catastrophists label me  a ‘climate denier,’ they aren’t trying to accurately characterize my views–they’re trying eliminate opposition to their political policies.   3.  If we look at what has been scientifically demonstrated vs. what has been speculated, the climate impact of CO2 is real but mild and manageable.  4.  While fossil-fuel use has only a mild warming impact, it has an enormous protecting impact. Nature doesn’t give us a stable, safe climate that we make dangerous. It gives us an ever-changing, dangerous climate that we need to make safe. And the driver behind sturdy buildings, affordable heating and air-conditioning, drought relief and everything else that keeps us safe from climate is cheap, plentiful, reliable energy, overwhelmingly from fossil fuels.
  51. WILLIS ESCHENBACH:  B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University and “carpenter, house builder, and amateur scientist”.  Has no credentials in any scientific field. Regular speaker at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change.  Previously worked as a Construction Manager at Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji, Sport Fishing guide in Alaska, and as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. A blogger at climate change denial blog Watts Up With That (WUWT). His work is cited by Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog.In addition to his commentary on climate change, Eschenbach has a proposal” for nuclear waste disposal in the form of dropping them to the bottom of the ocean.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  The preponderance of the evidence shows that humans are the main cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 but I don’t think that the change in CO2 will make any meaningful difference to the temperature.   2.  Sustainable Development is just an airy-fairy moonbeam fantasy, a New Age oxymoron. In the real world, it just can’t happen.   3.  There might be some adverse outcomes from that eight tenths of a degree of temperature rise threatening my Grandchildren in 2050, but neither I nor anyone else knows what those outcomes might be. We’ll assuredly get an extra flood over here, and one less flood over there, it’s very likely to be drier somewhere and wetter somewhere else, in other words, the climate will do what climate has done since forever — change.   4.  Greenland is losing about 0.007% of its total mass every year seven thousandths of one percent lost annually, be still, my beating heart. And if that terrifying rate of loss continues unabated, of course, it will all be gone in a mere 15,000 years.    5.  The problem is that 71.3% of what passes as peer reviewed climate science is simply junk science, as false as the percentage cited in this sentence.
  52. VIV FORBES: Degree in Applied Science Geology, and Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, which was created to “defend the role of carbon on earth and in the atmosphere,” and which describes Forbes as a “pasture manager, soil scientist and geologist from Rosevale in Queensland. An association with the coal industry includes his role at Stanmore as director and over 40 years of coal industry experience  with Burton Coal, Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, South Blackwater Coal Mine, Tahmoor Coal Mine, Newlands/Collinsville Coal Mines, MIM, Utah Goonyella/Saraji, Gold Fields, and Austral Coal, and as general manager of Rocklands Richfield coal company.Associated with other climate change skeptical organizations including the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC).   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  The Green Elite” has a “long-term agenda to destroy human industry and reduce human population. Thus they are opposed to farming, mining, fishing, forestry, exploration and cheap power.   2.  It is unbelievable that many in politics and the media are whipping up public hysteria about ‘global warming’ when the best evidence suggests that for the 100 years ending in the year 2000, the century of coal, steel, electricity, the internal combustion engine, jet planes, two world wars and a population explosion, the average surface temperature rose by only 0.6 deg, and there has been NO increase in temperature since 1998. In many areas, surface temperatures have been falling for decades.   3.  Queensland has wasted millions on the global warming industry. Residents would be better off had they spent it on water storage, flood gauges and flood-proofing of highways, railways and airports.   4.  Even if the water vapour and carbon dioxide produced by man did cause some slight warming of the earth, is this a problem? Eons of geological history show that a warm, moist, carbon-rich atmosphere encourages all life on earth. These periods are referred to as ‘Golden Ages’. The cold barren periods are those to be feared – they get called ‘The Dark Ages’.   5.  Carbon dioxide plays a wholly beneficial role in the atmosphere, and there is no evidence that this would change should carbon dioxide levels rise. It is being vilified because it is a so-called ‘Greenhouse Gas’.   6.  There is no evidence, no consensus among scientists, no clear benefits, no reliable projections but huge potential costs if Australia does indeed pursue a ‘low Carbon Future’.
  53. IVAR GIAEVER:   Ph.D., Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Degree in Mechanical Engineering, Norwegian Institute of Technology.  Chief Technology Officer of the company Applied BioPhysics Inc. Retired professor formerly with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s department of physics. Shared the Nobel Prize for physics with Leo Esakis for their discovery of electron tunnelling in superconductors.  Emigrated to Canada in 1954 where he studied engineering with Canadian General Electric’s Advanced Engineering Program. He then emigrated to the USA where he completing engineering courses with GE, and eventually joined the GE Research and Development center in 1958 at the same time he began his study of physics at Rensselaer.  Awarded the Oliver E. Buckley Prize by the American Physical Society in 1965, and the Zworykin Award by the National Academy of Engineering in 1974.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  Resigned from the American Physical Society when he disagreed with their stance on global warming which they believe is occurring and is “incontrovertible.   2.  Has not published any work in the area of climate science. Giaever’s climate science resume is limited to serving on a climate change discussion panel at the 51st convention of Nobel laureates where he stated that he is skeptical of the importance of the issue of global warming.   3. I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.   4. Global warming has become a new religion.   5.  In a presentation titled, “Global Warming Revisited,” at the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings on July 1, 2015, Giaver states that “global warming is a non-problem that it has become a new religion, and that we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.    6.  The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide. “Make no mistake, the agitators are not defending science from quackery — quite the contrary!
  54. STEVEN GODDARD / TONY HELLER:   Masters in Electrical Engineering – Rice University.  BS Geology – ASU.  A global warming skeptic, regular contributor to WattsUpWithThat (WUWT), and operator of ”The Deplorable Climate Science Blog.” The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller. He describes himself as an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.  He says that global warming is the “biggest scientific fraud in history.  Author of a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect – a statement that he later retracted.  His blog titled  “Real Science” was initialy at Real-Science.com, and later moved to Stevengoddard.wordpress.com  and again to Realclimatescience.com.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1. Make no mistake about it, global warming is the biggest scientific fraud in history.   2.  Global warming is indeed Mann-made, by Michael Mann and James Hansen. But it has nothing to do with climate or science.   3.  The 97% consensus quoted daily by Barack Obama is based on a few fraudulent studies of a handful of published papers. There is no global warming crisis. There is a crisis of the White House having government agencies manipulate data, in pursuit of their global warming agenda. There is also a crisis of the White House attacking the Bill of Rights in pursuit of their global warming agenda.   4.  After a Craig Idso talk at a CPAC meeting, “My takeaway from that [Craig Idso’s talk] is that efforts to reduce CO2 are not only anti-science, but they’re anti-human”.   5.  I completely agree with Fred Singer that there probably has been little or no warming since the 1940s.   6.  The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.”   7.  Nothing about climate science reeks more of confirmation bias, than the changes scientists make to their own data sets over time. They all show exactly the same pattern of monotonically cooling the past and warming the present, regardless of the instrumentation.   8.  Climate fraudsters say that glaciers melting is an ‘early sign of global warming. They are lying. Glaciers have been melting for a very long time, and were melting during NASA’s claimed coldest years ever.  9.  In summary, the NASA global and US temperature records are neither accurate, nor credible representations of reality.   10.  The claimed agreement in temperature data is simply not legitimate. The people involved know that their data is inadequate, tampered and largely made up. The reason that the data sets agree is due to collusion, not independent research as they claim. It is the biggest scientific fraud in history.   11.  NASA scientists have a strong conflict of interest in that they expect to see warming, and they the more alarm they create, the more money they obtain. This is why climate scientists have no business touching the temperature data. They have no training in signal processing and they have shown repeatedly that they will alter data to suit their needs.   12.  NASA shows 3.24 mm/year sea level rise on their web site. They call it ‘Facts’ – when in fact it is blatant fraud.   13.  In 1927, CO2 levels were very low. An endless series of disasters struck the world, and glaciers were rapidly melting. What we can conclude from all this is: The climate was not better at lower levels of CO2 The climate would not get better if we reduced CO2 levels The NASA temperature record is complete garbage.
  55. INDUR GOKLANY:  Ph. D., Electrical Engineering, Michigan State University.  Senior advisor at the U.S. Interior Department’s Office of Policy Analysis. Worked with federal and state governments, think tanks, and the private sector for over 35 years. Was Julian Simon Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) in 2000, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (2002-2003), and the winner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Julian Simon Prize and Award (2007).  Published papers with numerous think tanks that question man-made climate change including the Cato Institute, which published two of Goklany’s books, and the Reason Foundation which published multiple Policy Studies by Goklany. He is also a guest contributor on the climate change denial blog Watts Up With That run by Anthony Watts. Known for his promotion of DDT as a method to fight malaria, despite the possibility for more effective measures available. He was involved in a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) film titled “Policy Peril: Why Global Warming Policies are More Dangerous than Global Warming Itself, criticizing Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. He has also been affiliated with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and the International Policy Network (IPN).  According to leaked budget documents, Indur Goklany has received $1,000 per month from the Heartland Institute, an organization at the forefront of climate change denial, for his work on the “NIPCC Project.” According to the National Center for Science Education, Heartland’s Non-intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has the primary goal to “convey that there is a scientific debate about climate change” and is created for the sole purpose of criticizing the IPCC.He instructed scientists at the Interior Department to add that raising CO2 levels could be beneficial as it may “may increase plant water use efficiency” and “lengthen the agricultural growing season.” Samuel Myers, a principal research scientist at Harvard University’s Center for the Environment, said the language “takes very specific and isolated pieces of science, and tries to expand it in an extraordinarily misleading fashion. According to the documents reviewed by the Times, Goklany began directing scientists to add uncertainly language in reports as early as September 2017 when he was newly appointed to the office of the deputy secretary.  My edits are on the attached,” Mr. Goklany wrote in a September 12 email of that year, where he added mark ups indicating references to benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere. He also included an abstract of a paper, and he wrote “that CO2 may have increased the water use efficiency of plants globally.”  In December 2017 he gave a presentation at the Interior Department on the benefits of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide to “human & environmental well-being.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain.   2.  The global climate has not been warming as rapidly as projected in the IPCC assessment reports. Models have been running hotter than reality. But these are the projections that governments have relied on to justify global warming policies, including subsidies for biofuels and renewable energy while increasing the overall cost of energy to the general consumer – costs that disproportionately burden those that are poorer.   3.  Assessments of climate change impacts usually give short shrift to the potential positive impacts of anthropogenic global warming.   4.  Over the foreseeable future, the magnitude of the problem due to unmitigated climate change is generally smaller than that due to non-climate change related factors, and, where it is not, as in the case of coastal flooding, it is more economical to remedy it via adaptation. Therefore, global warming is unlikely to be the most important environmental problem facing the world, at least for most of the remainder of this century.   5.  In his article “Is Climate Change the Defining Challenge of Our Age?” , Goklany argued:  Climate change is not now—nor is it likely to be for the foreseeable future—the most important environmental problem facing the globe, unless present-day problems such as hunger, water-related diseases, lack of access to safe water and sanitation, and indoor air pollution are reduced drastically. Future generations should, moreover, have greater access to human capital and technology to address whatever problems they might face, including climate change. Hence the argument that we should shift resources from dealing with the real and urgent problems confronting present generations to solving potential problems of tomorrow’s wealthier and better positioned generations is unpersuasive at best and verging on immoral at worst.   6.   Considering that future generations will be far better off than current generations even after accounting for climate change, it would be more equitable for today’s industrialized world to help solve the real problems facing today’s poorer developing world than to mitigate climate change now to help reduce the burden on future populations that would not only be wealthier but also technologically superior.   7.  Strictly from the perspective of human well-being, the richest-but-warmest world characterized by the A1FI scenario would probably be superior to the poorer-but-cooler worlds at least through 2085, particularly if one considers the numerous ways GDP per capita advances human well-being.
  56.  KEN HAAPALA:   MS (Economics), Economic Modeling, Energy Economics. President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and an expert at The Heartland Institute. Regular contributor to the Heartland Institute’s Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change NIPCC reports. Compiler of SEPP’s The Week That Was newsletter on climate news, with a News You Can Use section that highlights articles and papers by climate change deniers. Background in energy and economics modeling. Appointed by President Donald Trump to serve on the administration’s team handling appointments for the U.S. Department of Commerce.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1. The EPA stated that it based its finding (1) a distinct human fingerprint in the atmosphere over the tropics; (2) late 20th century warming was unusual; and (3) climate models predict that human-caused warming would become dangerous to humans in the 21st century. No one, including the National Academy of Sciences, has been able to find the distinct human fingerprint except those who falsely claim such a warming is uniquely human-caused.   2.  There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.   3.  Perhaps the most remarkable item in President Trump’s first State of the Union Address and its official rebuttal by Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) was the failure to mention dire global warming/climate change, drastic sea level rise, and the many ills that have been prophesized if we continue to burn hydrocarbons and emit carbon dioxide. Is a new realization occurring that we will not overheat or drown in acidic waters? Probably not. The alarmists will continue to attack President Trump for his climate policies and gently criticize Kennedy for his oversight. After all, decades of propaganda cannot be overcome with a single speech.   4.  On the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline executive orders:  Pipelines are the safest way to transport oil over land. When the Keystone XL pipeline was proposed, it made economic sense to build it. Not only was it to be built with private money, it made far more economic sense than many of the so-called ‘shovel ready’ jobs in the ‘stimulus bill’ funded by taxpayers. Whether it still makes economic sense is now up to the developers, not the arbitrary political whims of Washington.“Stopping the Dakota Access pipeline after 98% of the pipeline was laid down was an example of how the greens infected political decisions in Washington. The pipeline was to be drilled almost 100 feet below the riverbed of the Missouri, not placed on it. But, that made little difference to those stopped it.    5.   It’s past time to end the scare and and stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat.   6.  The EPA claimed that carbon dioxide emissions are pollutants that endangers human health, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. Green plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis to create the food plants and animals need to survive.   7.  Testimony on the EPA:  Carbon dioxide is a necessary food for green plants, thus necessary for life on this planet as we generally recognize it. As discussed in the second report, thousands of experiments and observations show that virtually all food crops and green plants thrive better in an atmosphere enriched in carbon dioxide and better resist stress such as draught, or insect attacks. Contrary to EPA claims, Carbon dioxide enrichment, condemned by these regulations, is a benefit to agriculture, humanity, and the planet. The EPA has failed to present any compelling physical evidence that man’s emissions of Greenhouse Gases caused the 20th Century warming. Instead, it has relied on the IPCC and its faulty computer models that are biased, obsolete, and wrong.   8.  At the Heartland Institute:  The purpose of this event is to promote and expand energy freedom in the United States, as outlined in President Donald Trump’s bold America First Energy Plan, a proposal first released during the 2016 presidential campaign. The president’s plan marks a decisive change in direction from the Obama administration’s ‘war on fossil fuels’ and focus on the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change,” the conference description reads.
  57. WILLIAM HAPPER:   Ph.D, physics, Princeton (1964). Professor Emeritus of physics, Princeton University. Director of the CO2 Coalition, a group formed in 2015 out of the former George C. Marshall Institute where Happer was also previously chairman of the board. Academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and a member of Climate Exit (Clexit).  Trump administration’s National Security Council (NSC) as a senior director for emerging technologies where he would spearhead a proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security to advise President Trump on climate issues. He has now left that assignment. Serves as Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute.  Desmog says they found a trail to fossil fuel funding of Happer’s anti climate activities.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  I know the difference between real and phony science. My sodium guide stars work. Climate models do not.   2.  Since the year 1800, the Earth has warmed by about 1 degree Celsius. Some fraction of the warming is due to more atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels, but most of the warming is probably due to the same natural forces that have always controlled the Earth’s changeable climate.    3.  I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small compared the natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, and that the warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind.   4.  Alleging climate change was invented by “paranoid” scientists, Happer told the Washington Examiner that it was a “completely imaginary threat that doesn’t exist. People are afraid to stand up and say that.   5.  I feel bad about the younger generation. They have been brainwashed. The people who think this is a winning election issue are wrong.    6.  The public in general doesn’t realize that from the point of view of geological history, we are in a CO2 famine.   7.  It’s not as though if you double CO2 you make a big difference. You make a barely detectable difference.   8.  The 97% consensus is phony.   9.   We’re doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. It’s not a pollutant at all.   10.  We should be telling the scientific truth that more CO2 is actually a benefit to the earth.   11.  Let me point out that if you have a well-designed coal plant, what comes out of the stack of the plant is almost the same thing that comes out of a person’s breath.  12.   The main thing is that people don’t realize we’re in a CO2 famine right now. We’re way down. We’re down by a factor of 4 or 5 over the levels that plants would really like.   13.  We know that the scary things about CO2 you keep hearing about like sea level rise, we’re all going to boil—that’s all based on models that don’t work. They’re not even close to working. Why are we basing these ruinous regulations on models that don’t work?   14.  Burning all the economically available fossil fuel is unlikely to increase the current atmospheric CO2 levels by even a factor of 2. This is much less than the levels that the Earth has already tested. And a doubled level of CO2 would get us away from the near-famine levels for plants that have prevailed for the past tens of millions of years.    15.  I would like history to remember me as an honest scientist. Along with many like me, I am trying to explain to my fellow Americans the serious damage that will be done to us, and indeed to the whole world, by cockamamie policies to ‘save the planet’ from CO2.   16.  We have no more ability to prevent climate change than King Canute had to stop the tide from rising. All the observational evidence is that CO2 has a relatively small effect on temperature. Changes in the Earth’s temperature will continue to be dominated by natural causes, whether we increase CO2 concentrations, by continuing to burn fossil fuels, or whether we permit a nightmarish police state to stop emissions CO2,and punish ‘deniers’ as some in the alarmist camp demand.   17.  I can’t think of any benefits for reducing CO2 emissions. CO2 is not a pollutant. Almost all plants grow better and are more drought resistant with two to four times more CO2 than now.”   18.  There is no “overwhelming consensus. In spite of decades of propaganda, and even threats to their jobs, about half of meteorologists remain unconcerned about global warming.   19. The war on fossil fuels isn’t based on science but on unreliable climate models. Rather than trying to correct the models, Team Obama is trying to ‘dispute the science’ by trying to manufacture scary warming trends.   20.  Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?
  58. TOM HARRIS:   B. Eng. , M. Eng. (Mech., thermofluids and energy sciences), Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a group of climate change skeptics that has received funding from the Heartland Institute. Former Executive Director of the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project.  Former Director of Operations at the Canadian PR and lobbying firm called the High Park Group. Former Associate with APCO Worldwide, a group known for creating The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) which worked to advance tobacco industry interests. Worked with oil and gas, coal, nuclear, environmental and aerospace clients for whom he has conducted effective media and public relations campaigns. Worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before various government committees and regulatory bodies.  The Heartland Institute describes Harris as “perhaps the most frequently cited and interviewed critic of exaggeration and alarmism in the global warming debate.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.   2.  Science is rapidly evolving away from the view that humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ are a cause of dangerous climate change.
    Climate models used by the IPCC fail to reproduce known past climates without manipulation and therefore lack the scientific integrity needed for use in climate prediction and related policy decision-making.   3.  The IPCC Summary for Policymakers and the assertions of IPCC executives too often seriously mis-represent the conclusions of their own scientific reports.    4.  Claims that ‘consensus’ exists among climate experts regarding the causes of the modest warming of the past century are contradicted by thousands of independent scientists.   5.  Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant – it is a necessary reactant in plant photosynthesis and so is essential for life on Earth.  6.   Research that identifies the Sun as a major driver of global climate change must be taken more seriously.   7.  Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial.   8.  It is not possible to reliably predict how climate will change in the future, beyond the certainty that multi-decadal warming and cooling trends, and abrupt changes, will all continue, underscoring a need for effective adaptation.   9.  Since science and observation have failed to substantiate the human-caused climate change hypothesis, it is premature to damage national economies with `carbon’ taxes, emissions trading or other schemes to control ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions.   10.  Carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions from human activity—energy production, transportation, cement production, heating and cooling, etc.—appear to have only a very small impact on global climate.   11.  So-called “new renewable energy technologies” are extremely expensive and rely on huge subsidies. To use such intermittent and diffuse power sources requires that the consumer pays between three and ten times the price of power from conventional sources (coal, oil, natural gas, hydro and nuclear). Regardless, it is not currently possible to safely replace a significant fraction of our conventional energy supplies with alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and most biofuels.   12.  New renewable energy technologies have only a minimal effect on carbon dioxide emissions because none of them can be relied upon to be available when needed. Therefore, conventional fossil fuel-fired power stations must be kept on standby in case the wind drops or a cloud passes over the Sun. This leads to additional emissions of carbon dioxide that, to a large extent, offset the reductions made by the renewable energy technologies.  “Energy independence” is not a good reason for promoting new renewable energy technologies.Energy independence is more easily–and much more cheaply–attained by exploiting abundant national fossil fuel reserves, and spending some of the wealth created on research into potential new energy technologies.
  59. ROGER HELMER:   M.A., Mathematics, Churchill College.  A former member of European Parliament for the East Midlands of Great Britain, representing the UK Independence Party (UKIP), a group pushing the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. He was elected for his second term in June 2004 and sits on several committees including Unemployment, Petitions, Constitutional Affairs, and the Parliament’s Temporary Committee on Climate Change.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1. In the last hundred years, average global temperature has risen a mere 0.7 degrees Celsius. There is ample evidence that results from ground-based weather stations have been contaminated by urban sprawl, tarmac, car parks, vehicles, buildings and air-conditioning units.   2.  Temperature data from satellites over the last 30 years show some warming, but less than that from ground stations. This slight 0.7 degree rise is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate cycles.   3. The truth is that climate alarmism has become the most expensive, and the most wasteful, project in the history of the world. It is junk economics built on junk science. It amounts to no more than hot air, yet it looks set to beggar our grandchildren.   4. The truth is that climate alarmism has become the most expensive, and the most wasteful, project in the history of the world. It is junk economics built on junk science. It amounts to no more than hot air, yet it looks set to beggar our grandchildren.   5.  AGW is simply a kind of collective hysteria with no basis in science.   6.  It’s the temperature driving the CO2, and not, as Gore wrongly asserts, the CO2 driving the temperature. The records clearly show the CO2 graph around 800 years or so behind the temperature graph.   7.  By geo-historical standards, today’s atmospheric CO2 levels are remarkably – indeed dangerously – low. We need CO2 in the air to support plant growth and agricultural yields, and more would be better.
  60. CRAIG IDSO:   Ph.D., Geography, Arizona State University.  Chairman and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (AKA Co2Science.org or CSCDGC).  The Center’s stated mission is to “separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change.  The Center’s publication is CO2 Science, a weekly magazine that features articles questioning the science behind man-made climate change. Craig’s father is the President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide on Global Change and his brother is the Vice President.  DeSmog has learned that Craig Idso receives $11,600/month from the Heartland Institute and unspecified sums from the fossil fuel industry.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   According to the Center for Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,  1. A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation.”   2.  Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming.   3.  Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling.   4.  There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather.   5.  Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere.   6.  Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike.   7.  At the Energy and Climate Summit: The reality is that any efforts to restrict CO2 emissions will not only raise food prices, but jeopardize the future food security of the planet.   8.  Today’s action by Pruitt is a wake-up call for those who continue to falsely claim carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It isn’t, so get over it! Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas that is essential for life on Earth. It will never cause the dangerous global warming that climate alarmists and their failed models predict. Future legal challenges to reverse Pruitt’s action are welcomed, as they will only fail in the end.     9.  For years, the U.S. government has held the position that atmospheric CO2 is a dangerous air pollutant that must be regulated to avoid the perils of global warming and climate change. I hope and trust that you also know that the scientific evidence supporting that position is tenuous at best and upheld primarily by inadequate and unvalidated computer model projections as opposed to real-world observations. This I know from having studied thousands of scientific papers on the topic.    10.  There really is probably no category of photosynthesizing plant that does not respond in a positive manner to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, and that is not likely to be benefited by the ongoing rise in the air CO2 content.”    11.  It is my sincere hope the incoming Trump administration will recognize these truths, for truths they indeed are, and reverse course as is appropriate on federal policies that for far too long now have besmirched and defamed the many virtues of carbon dioxide. Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the very elixir of life.   12.  Forecasts of future ocean pH come from unproven, theoretical postulations by models based on absorption of CO2 by the oceans. Regardless, there really is no such thing as a representative pH for the whole ocean. It varies vastly near the coast and in upwelling regions, much more than the projected increase in acidity.   13.  Despite a constant barrage of stories portraying rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) as a danger and threat to the planet, more and more scientific evidence is accruing showing that the opposite is true.   14.  Carbon dioxide is a well-known aerial fertilizer, and many thousands of studies have proven the growth-enhancing, water-saving and stress-alleviating benefits it provides for plants. The reality is that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are providing a multitude of benefits to the biosphere.   15.  Indeed, even now, we may already be unknowing participants in the great plan, as our burning of fossil fuels releases long-sequestered carbon to the atmosphere, awakening earth’s plant life from the lethargy of the low CO2 concentrations under which it has basically slumbered throughout the entire history of man. Let us deeply consider these matters before we put forth our arm to steady the ark of God. He is clearly capable of doing His own work.   16.  CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a benefit. It is the very elixer of life.   17.  As just one example, and a damning one at that, all of the computer models upon which this vision is based failed to predict the current plateau in global temperature that has continued for nearly two decades now. That the Earth has not warmed significantly during this period, despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, is a major indictment of the models’ credibility in predicting future climate, as well as the assertion that debate on this topic is ‘settled.   18.  It is a well-established fact that atmospheric CO2 is the major building block of nearly all life, as it is used by plants in the process of photosynthesis to construct their tissues and grow. As numerous scientific studies have conclusively demonstrated, the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants grow. They produce greater amounts of biomass, become more efficient in using water, and are better able to cope with environmental stresses such as pollution, drought, salinity, and high temperatures.   19.  By ignoring these realities, policy prescriptions calling for a reduction in fossil fuel use are found—on this basis alone—to be ill-advised. Yet there are still other important reasons to reject them.   20.  Taxing or regulating CO2 emissions is an unnecessary and detrimental policy option that should be shunned. Why would any government or religious institution advocate to increase regulations and raise energy prices based on flawed computer projections of climate change that will never come to pass?   21.  Despite thousands of scientific articles affirming numerous benefits of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2, IPCC makes almost no mention of any positive externalities resulting from these changes.  Climate Change Reconsidered II corrects this failure, presenting an analysis of thousands of neglected research studies that IPCC has downplayed or ignored in its reports so that scientists, politicians, educators, and the general public can be better informed and make decisions about the potential impacts of CO2-induced climate change.   22.  The Industrial Revolution has been a tremendous boon to humanity, as it has lifted large numbers of our kind from poverty to prosperity. It has also helped the rest of the biosphere – and thereby us once again – via the powerful aerial fertilization effect of the carbon dioxide that has gone into the atmosphere as a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels. Indeed, it’s been win, win, win for all of life; and if there’s ever been a recipe for success, this is it.   (The Desmog Blog responds that Craig Idso has fossil fuel industry connections and thus speaks on their behalf.)
  61. ALAN JONES:   BA, University of Queensland (1967).  Shock Jock Radio Personality, Host of the Alan Jones Breakfast Show.  Australia’s most popular talkback presenter.  Patron” of the Galileo Movement, an Australian organization, registered as a private company, dedicated to campaigning against legislation to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  Jones has repeatedly referred to global warming as a “hoax.  2.  The notion of global warming is a hoax. This is witchcraft. Commonsense will tell you it’s rubbish; 97 per cent of all carbon dioxide occurs naturally […] 3 per cent around the world is created by human beings.   3.  The tentacles of the global warming hoax are everywhere.   4.  There is an “admission of incompetence from the man-made global warming, climate change cheer squad regarding a global warming “pause.   5.  You’d imagine scientists finally facing this reality would reassess all their assumptions about climate change – including the assumption man-made CO2, which continues to rise, is driving global warming. “But not this mob.   6.  No, they blame their dodgy predictions on ‘natural variability’ (things like El Ninos and La Ninas) and ‘unforeseen events’ (volcanic eruptions).    7.  Decarbonization of the economy is a “national economic suicide note.
  62.  MADHAV KHANDEKAR:   Ph.D., Meteorology, Florida State University.  Retired Environment Canada scientist. The Heartland Institute describes him as “an environmental consultant on extreme weather events and a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. DeSmog Blog has determined that Khandekar receives money from Heartland.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.  There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature at all. In fact if we look at the temperature change over the last 100 years and link it with the CO2, there is little correlation.   2.  At this point I don’t think it’s correct to say that the planet is continuing to warm because it has essentially stayed about the same. There is no additional warming of the entire earth-atmosphere-ocean system in the last few years.   3.  I don’t see that CO2 is inducing any climate change. CO2 may have induced a small amount of warming that we saw in the 80’s and 90’s but more importantly CO2 is an inert gas, it is not a pollutant.   4.  The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide.“Make no mistake, the agitators are not defending science from quackery — quite the contrary!”[HERE DESMOG INSERTS THEIR STANDARD TEXT ABOUT REBEKAH MERCER, THE AMNH, AND AN ALLEGED MONEY CONNECTION BETWEEN CLIMATE DENIERS AND THE MERCER FAMILY THAT FORCES THE DENIERS TO SUPPORT REBEKAH MERCER IN THE AMNH ISSUE.]Demonstrators holding placards and banners during a protest
  63. DONNA LAFRAMBOISE:  Degree in Women’s Studies, University of Toronto. Journalist, photographer, and founder of NOconsensus.org, a website critical of the IPCC and skeptical of climate change. In late 2013, Laframboise became a senior fellow for the Frontier Center for Public Policy, a freemarket think tank based in the US and Canada. Laframboise is very critical of the Independent Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In 2010 she organized a “citizen audit” of the IPCC, and produced a report where she claimed that many of the report’s sources were not peer-reviewed. She published her views in her book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. The IPCC has clear guidelines regarding the use of non peer-reviewed sources, and a spokesman has stated that such sources include government statistics or reports from industry associations, and said “We do not believe that it is appropriate to keep out such material from the process.” Between 1993 and 2001, Laframboise was a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, serving as a Vice President from 1998-2001. Prior to 2002, she wrote for the National Post, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, Chatelaine, Toronto Life, and other publications. She now works as a photographer. Laframboise is also the author of the blog NoFrakkingConsensus.
  64. RICHARD LINDZEN:   Ph.D., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University.  Former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a position he held from 1983 until his retirement in 2013. He is the Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science.  Lindzen’s academic interests are: climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. HERE DESMOG INSERTS THEIR STANDARD TEXT ABOUT CLIMATE DENIAL FUNDING BY FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS SUCH AS EXXON AND THE KOCH BROTHERS. KOCHIn addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   Writing at Merion West,  1.  Lindzen argued that the belief that climate change is caused largely by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide is pretty close to believing in magic. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.  2.  The only meaningful question would be whether we are seeing anything sufficiently unusual to to warrant concern. And the answer to this is unambiguously ‘no’,” Lindzen declared at the At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit, organized by the Heritage Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF).  3.  Lindzen described the 97% consensus among climate scientists as “propaganda”. It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age.   4.  Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2.”   So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points. 4.  First, non-scientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists–especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a ‘moral’ crusade.  5.  Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce–if we’re lucky,” Lindzen wrote in an article at the Wall Street Journal. According to Richard Lindzen, 6.  computer models used in predicting climate change are “generally recognized as experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable.”   KEY QUOTATIONS:  7.  Warming of any significance ceased about 20 years ago,” Lindzen claimed in a lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation.  Speaking at “At the Crossroads IV: Energy & Climate Policy Summit,” a conference co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation and Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), Lindzen declared:  8.  The greenhouse effect due to CO2 alone is, as has been mentioned, is small. Alarm depends on poorly modeled feedbacks to the main greenhouse substances.   Lindzen made the following statements at the “At the Crossroads III: Energy and Climate Policy Summit” in December 2016:  9.  Both the evidence and the motivation have been clear early on. Energy is a multi-trillion dollar sector of the economy. Control over this sector is an obvious target for those who want increasing state control over society.   10.  Curtailing access to energy is nothing short of malicious, and that’s what precisely the war on fossil fuels is. As has been noted, the environmental movement likes any source of energy, provided that it doesn’t work.”   11.  In fact, there is good scientific evidence that added CO2 will be a net benefit to the Earth. Craig [Idso] mentioned this in detail. The media hyperventilate over statistically insignificant temperature changes of small fractions of a degree.   12.  Some politicians and others may actually believe that [global] warming is bad and leads to catastrophe. But the fact remains that this is as blatantly false and dangerous as were the claims for eugenics.   13.  The absurd claims of increasing droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, sea level rise, and other extremes are contradicted not only by the UN but by the data.   14.  The Earth has done the experiment of much higher CO2 than we have. And the planet survived. It did have catastrophes. There were ice ages. There were other things. It just didn’t correlate with the CO2.    15.  Modest warming by itself would also be a net benefit to human health and agriculture. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. When it comes to climate alarm, this has gone much too far, wasting trillions of dollars to avoid a beneficial change.   16.  It’s time to put the brakes on the climate alarm movement. The benefits would be immense, and would come with immense savings and not expenditures.    17.  Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and modest warming is mostly beneficial. When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record, what are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.    18.  Even the connection of fossil fuel emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels is open to question. In the ice core records of the ice ages, it appears that CO2 levels may follow temperature increases, rather than vice versa,” Lindzen declared in June 2015 testimony.   19.  As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical.    20.  There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons.    21.   To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science.   22.  Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.   23.  We’re talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.
  65. BJORN LOMBORG:   Ph.D., Political Science, University of Copenhagen.  Political scientist, economist, Professor at the Copenhagen Business School, Publi speaker, Founding president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC). with more than $4 million in funding. Author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, that downplay the risks of global warming. Lomborg does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles on climate change.The Sweeney Agency manages his speaking engagements and describes Lomborg as an “Author and Speaker on the Environment and Climate Change,” in its promotional literature. DeSmogblog notes that none of the topics Lomborg speaks about is “The Truth About Global Warming” as advertised. Lomborg is best known for the book and movie “Cool It” that says that the climate story as told is a one-sided and exaggerated claim about the environment and climate change, leading to unwarranted panic, instead of rational assessments. He argues that many of the impacts of global warming would be better addressed through adaptation.  DeS,og says that Lomborg has erred and that Lomborg’s errors in his discussion of climate change have been documented by many sources including a 2010 book published by Yale University Press titled The Lomborg Deception: Setting the Record Straight About Global Warming.  There is a website on “Lomborg’s Errors” at Lomborg-errors.dk . He is not popular in his home country of Denmark.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  Lomborg acknowledged that global warming is a challenge that humanity must confront and that he supports a carbon tax and a $100 billion investment in clean technologies but in his book Smart Solutions to Climate Change, he argues that it would be too expensive to implement any major carbon reduction policy, and that drastic carbon cuts would be the poorest way to respond to global warming.   2.  Desmog reports says that Lomborg appears to be confused and that he often contradicts himself.  3. Right to say fossil fuels are what poor countries need.  We must provide more access to cheap fossil fuels to solve the energy poverty problem in the Global South.   3.  Lomborg has described solar panels as inefficient and states this is why you have to subsidize them.   4.  Desmog says that in a contradiction, Lomborg then advocates for investments in green energy technologies saying that wealthy Western nations must step up investments into research and development in green energy technologies to ensure that cleaner energy eventually becomes so cheap that everyone will want it.    5.  Lomborg promotes geo-engineering to address climate change and envisions a fleet of 1900 robotic ships that will patrol the ocean while releasing spouts of ocean water to reflect the sun’s rays in an attempt to reduce global warming. Climate scientist Ken Caldeira says it’s a dystopic science fiction story.   6.  On the Wall Street Journal, Lomborg criticized the recent United Nations report on climate change saying that the new report has no comparison of the costs and benefits of climate targets. The optimal’ outcome is with a moderate carbon tax and a rise of about 6.3F by the end of the century. Reducing temperature rises by more would result in higher costs than benefits.   7.  Lomborg  criticizes the Paris climate Treaty saying that by the UN’ own estimates, all of the promised cuts up to 2030 will reduce emissions by less than 1 per cent of what is needed.   8.  Just like every other issue, there’s both positives and negatives to global warming. Overall, and in the long run, the negatives will outweigh the positives, but there is a lot of positives to global warming right now.    9.  Claims that cold temperatures are more deadly than heat, following the publication of the US Global Change Research Program’s (US GCRP) overview of the impact of climate change on public health.  Climate change is a genuine problem that will eventually be a net detriment to society. Gradually rising temperatures across decades will increase the number of hot days and heat waves. If humans make no attempts whatsoever to adapt—a curious assumption that the report inexplicably relies on almost throughout—the total number of heat-related deaths will rise. But correspondingly, climate change will also reduce the number of cold days and cold spells. That will cut the total number of cold-related deaths.    10.  In pushing too hard for the case that global warming is universally bad for everything, the administration’s report undermines the reasonable case for climate action. Focusing on only the bad side of the ledger destroys academic and political credibility.    11.  Pursuing this 2C target is very costly and not guaranteed to be successful. Much better, then, to target a maximum of, say, 3C rise, which will cost about $40 trillion but avoid most damages.  If we insist on 2C, we will pay an extra $60,000 billion, but only prevent a stream of $100 billion damages that begins in 70 to 80 years. Moreover, all of these estimates assume cost-effective climate policies, whereas in real life they have often become many times more expensive.    12.  “Renewables pave path to poverty,”  The Australian government recently released a paper for the review of the renewable energy target. What everyone engaged in this debate should recognise is that policies such as the carbon tax and the RET have contributed to household electricity costs rising 110 per cent in the past five years, hitting the poor the hardest.     13.  In 1971, 40 per cent of China’s energy came from renewables. Since then it has lifted 680 million people out of poverty using coal. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23 per cent of its energy from wind and solar.     14.  A new paper by Todd Moss and Ben Leo from the nonprofit think tank, Center for Global Development, puts it very clearly. If Obama spends the next $10 billion on gas electrification, he can help lift 90 million people out of poverty. If he only uses renewables, the same $10 billion can help just 20 million-27 million people. Using renewables, we will deliberately choose to leave more than 60 million people in darkness and poverty…Our development aid should be used to help 60 million more people out of poverty, not as a tool to make us feel virtuous about facile, green choices.     15.  There’s no question that burning fossil fuels is leading to a warmer climate and that addressing this problem is important. But doing so is a question of timing and priority. For many parts of the world, fossil fuels are still vital and will be for the next few decades, because they are the only means to lift people out of the smoke and darkness of energy poverty.
  66. JENNIFER MAROHASY:   Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland.  Senior Fellow at the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs, with responsibilities for Climate Change in the Research Program.  Environment Manager for the Queensland Cane-growers Association where she became interested in environmental campaigns and, in particular, anomalies between fact and perception regarding the health of coastal river systems and the Great Barrier Reef.  Founded The Climate Modeling Laboratory with husband John Abbot in 2015. The group claims the ability to forecast accurate rainfall amounts up to a year in advance using “historical data and genetic algorithms embedded into sophisticated probabilistic neural networks.  Marohasy’s publications have appeared in journals, magazines, and newspapers  analyses of climate data that are inconsistent with what DeSmog calls  “the scientific consensus” on AGW climate change. Joined Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) as Environment Unit Director with a focus on the Murray River. That same year she published a paper titled “Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment.” Her initial tenure at IPA coincided with a $40,000 contribution made to the organization from Murray Irrigation Limited, Australia’s largest irrigation company that DeSmog implies constrains her work to serve the needs of the Irrigation company saying that: “The IPA has variously claimed that the Murray River is fine and doesn’t need protection and that the Great Barrier Reef is not being polluted by fertilizer run-off”. Marohasy was a founding director of the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) and DeSmog finds fault with the support of Peter Ridd by the AEF and the IPA. The Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC) is a subsidiary of the AEF with an advisory board comprised of some of the country’s most prominent climate change deniers. DeSmog finds perverse funding connections of these companies that profit from to tobacco and pollution saying that Marohasy left the Institute for Public Affairs in 2009 following a contract non-renewal and went on to work as an adjunct senior research fellow at Central Queensland University from 2011 and 2015. While working at the university, her work was funded by Bryant Macfie, an Australian philanthropist and former shareholder in Strike Resources Limited, an international mining corporation.Returning to the IPA as a Senior Fellow in 2015, Marohasy’s work continued to be funded by Bryant Macfie.  EXTENSIVE ADDITIONAL TEXT ON EVIL FUNDS FOR MAROHASY IS INCLUDED IN THE SOURCE TEXT AT DESMOG.  KOCHSTANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  There have always been cycles of warming, followed by cooling.    2.  It’s ambiguous. It’s not clear that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide levels. But let’s move beyond that argument and let’s start talking about how we can adapt to what will be a different climate in the future.    3.  Global warming is actually not a hard issue to dissect, because fundamentally it relies on evidence of there being a general trend of temperature increase – and measuring temperatures is not rocket science. Of course, there is nowhere on Earth where the mean global temperature anomaly can be measured. So, steer-clear when this statistic is mentioned by an expert – you can probably dismiss it as something entirely contrived, like say the Virgin birth.    4.  In a paper authored by Marohasy and her husband, Dr. John Abbot, in the journal GeoRes:  we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there were no industrial revolution.    5.  In the Spectator, Marohasy wrote that Australian electricity prices were rising because of false assumptions about climate change modeling because the masses believe that global atmospheric temperatures are rising unnaturally – the Hazelwood coal-fired power station was decommissioned, and the price of electricity is surging across Australia. The evidence, however, for a rise in global temperatures is actually not that compelling except in computer models. … So, once this obsession with catastrophic global warming eventually comes to an end as it must, we will be able to start over, with the real data.    6.  Citing astronaut Harrison Schmitt:  Climate change is a tool for people who are trying to increase the size of government.    7.  On TV:  I actually think that it’s good if we can get beyond this debate of whether increase in carbon dioxide levels are driving more extreme climate events. I think that we need to move beyond that and accept and recognize that whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change.     8.  Ref: Bjorn Lomborg’s visit to Australia:   I think what we see as an inability by so many in Australia to actually work from the basis of the evidence, work from the basis of the facts, is actually a global issue and I think that Lomborg will hopefully, by putting some of these issues in a global context, make us aware of what is happening globally and where we sit in that. Bjorn Lomborg has a lot of opinions with respect to greenhouse and the signing of the Kyoto Protocol and they’re very relevant in the context of current deliberations in Australia   9.  Posted to her blog a lengthy dismissal of a role for climate change in the Australian bushfires saying that “This has everything to do with our mismanagement of the landscape.     10.  Recent summers have been hotter, but such claims would not pass scrutiny if assessed. This is because of all the changes to the way temperatures are now measured.  DeSmog says that Marohasy’s claims of temperature manipulation, repeatedly cited in News Corp publications, have been debunked.    11.  Marohasy  wrote that those who cited climate change as a factor in the fires should face criminal investigation.  Those who do fake science and attempt to pass it off as the truth, and those who remodel the historical temperature record to something completely different, need to be held to account. We must start referring them to the Australian federal police.     12.  Marohasy defended climate denier Peter Ridd after he was fired from James Cook University. {DeSmog says that Peter Ridd was found guilty of improper conduct as he had frequently challenged scientific analysis of the effects of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. }.
  67. STEPHEN GEORGE MCINTYRE:   PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics), Oxford University, B.Sc., Mathematics, University of Toronto (1969).   Mining industry executive. In his blog called Climate Audit he presents long and extensive detailed analysis of the work of climate change scientists where he documents “statistical mistakes” in peer-reviewed scientific literature.  DeSmog says that McIntyre is a persistent amateur with no credentials in applied science. He entered the global warming debate in 2003 and has been a prominent critic of temperature records that suggest increasing global temperatures over the past 100 years. He worked in the mineral business for 30 years and he has been a director of small public mineral exploration companies.  In 2003 he published an article with climate change skeptic Ross McKitrick. DeSmog emphasizes his connection to the mining and oil and gas businesses as a source of his biases.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS EXPRESSED IN THE DESMOG INTERVIEW OF MCINTYRE:     1.  Question, “Does your work disprove global warming?”  Answer:  Mckitrick and I have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century.  I’m just saying that I don’t know. I looked at one narrow topic.    2.  When accused of funding from fossil fuel interests: I don’t have a big objection to think tanks sponsoring things. I don’t think there’s enough support for sceptics or critics as it is. If I wanted to make money, I’d have stayed in the mining business, rather than try to get money from Climategate.   I’m much more effective [on my own] than if I was depending on them. I think that’s actually been important to my staying power in this.     3.  About Climategate:  McIntyre admitted that he asked his blog readers to submit FOI Freedom of Information requests to the university in order to obtain research data. The logic was “if they’d sent it to other people… they had waived any confidentiality rights and on several counts they could not selectively send it to their pals and not send it to me. A few days later, McIntyre revisited the university’s website only to discover the very data he was after: “I noticed a file that was about the right size of a tree ring data set… so I opened it up and read it and thought ‘this is funny, this is the same data they’re refusing to give me. I then wrote a post at Climate Audit where I had some fun with it… a mole, I didn’t actually say a mole [provided] this data but I kind of made it. I edited a mole and then I announced that I was in possession of the version that they wouldn’t send to me.     4.  In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment (‘bodging’), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data.    5.  One of the things that I don’t get in the description of me by the climate scientists is that they portray me as a truck driver savant. I am well-educated.    6.  Referring to Michal Mann’s research:  Nobody had ever checked this stuff with any sort of due diligence.  What I find that is far too prevalent among climate scientists is that if they don’t persuade somebody of something, they blame the audience, not the presentation. I think part of that is being in the university environment where people are important in their departments, they’re mostly dealing with graduate students and sympathetic audiences, by and large, or audiences that criticize them differently than in a business organizations.    7.   The first time I ever thought about climate change was in late 2002 when the Canadian Government was promoting acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol. The slogan for their campaign was that the 20th century was the warmest century, the 1990s the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the past millennium – a slogan that got repeated in speech after speech and presentation after presentation.     8.  Steve McIntyre published two bogs that were subsequently used as support by fellow climate change denier John Christy who had been accused by Gavin Schmidt of giving “misleading” testimony to the US Congress.  Christy claimed that he had “thoroughly demonstrated that Schmidt was completely wrong using McIntyre’s posts as support, which suggest “trickery” on the part of Schmidt.    9.  In a series of blog posts, McIntyre attacked climate scientist Michael Mann in relation to a defamation suit the scientist brought against Mark Steyn and others.
  68. ROSS MCKITRICK:   Ph.D., Economics, University of British Columbia:   Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph and Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank.  Areas of specialization include environmental economics and policy analysis and current research areas include “empirical modeling of the relationship between economic growth and pollution emissions; the impact of economic activity on the surface temperature; and the climate change policy debate.  Co-author of the 2002 book Taken By Storm with fellow climate skeptic Christopher Essex. According to the book’s description, the “assumption that we know what is happening and how to control it regarding climate change is false.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  Endorser of the Cornwall Alliance’s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,” which states that – We deny that carbon dioxide, essential to all plant growth, is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.    2.  Calculations behind the social cost of carbon need to reflect empirical evidence about low climate sensitivity, and when this is done, the numbers appear to be much lower than those currently in use.    3.  The phony claim of 97 per cent consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.    4.I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.    5.  The bottom line for Canada is that Kyoto will precipitate a recession that will cause a permanent reduction in employment, income and the size of our economy. And if global warming is going to happen Kyoto will do nothing whatsoever to prevent it or even slow it down. Why are we still considering it?
  69. STEVE MILLOY:   Juris Doctorate, University of Baltimore.  Master of Laws Securities regulation, Georgetown University Law Center. Master of Health Sciences Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health.  Former Director of External Policy and Strategy at Murray Energy Corp, a coal producer.  Publisher of the website JunkScience.com, Former columnist for Fox News, Co-creator and manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, Former adjunct scholar with the Competitive Enterprise Institute,  Founding President of the business consulting firm Steven J. Milloy, Inc. and Milloy Senior Policy Fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute.Milloy and Tobacco: Steve Milloy has been associated with the major American tobacco companies since at least 1997. HERE DESMOG INSERTS THEIR STANDARD TEXT ON THE EVILS OF HIS PRIOR CONNECTION WITH THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY AND THE EVILS OF FUNDING PROVIDED BY CERTAIN KINDS OF BUSINESSES. climatedenial      STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  In The Greenhouse Myth,” Steve Milloy stated that the “doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-Industrial Revolution days might increase global temperature from between 0.5 degrees Centigrade to 1.5 degrees Centigrade – that is, not much.    2.  Anthropogenic climate change is not based on “actual temperature measurements and greenhouse physics – rather it comes from man-made computer models relying on myriad assumptions and guesswork.   3.  Responding to claims that a mother of one of the children suing the federal government for climate change inaction was an anti-pipeline protester, Milloy alleged that the parent was a case in point of an activist using her child as a human shield behind which she advances her intellectually and morally bankrupt political agenda. Their science and economics is so bad that they gotta use kids.    4.  I do have a bias, I’m all for the coal industry, the fossil-fuel industry. Wealth is what makes people happy, not pristine air, which you’ll never get.   5.  With reference to Scott Pruitt’s “secret science” initiative:  I look at it as one of my proudest achievements. The reason this is anywhere is because of Steve Milloy.    6.  Celebrated Trump’s appointment of Mike Pompeo as new Secretary of State on Twitter.    7.  Describes the termination of the EPA Climate Change Research Program under the new budget as “Winning”.    8.  Described efforts by U.S. Mayors to sign on to a climate pact to tackle climate change at a local level following President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, as a wasted effort.    9.  You could stop all greenhouse gas emissions from the United States today and keep them shut down until the year 2100 and it would hardly make any difference in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So it’s not going to have any effect on climate. I’m not quite sure what they’re trying to accomplish. I just assume this is just virtue signaling.    10.  Virtually every environmental policy I’ve seen since the early 1990s has been basically politics and not science.    11.  I think the encyclical is going to be a big mistake for Pope Francis. I think he is going to come out with a document that is going to be ripped to shreds.
  70. CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON:   Degree in Classics and Diploma in Journalism. Former British politician affiliated with the UK Independence Party and Former advisor to UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  Former special advisor to Thatcher’s Downing Street policy unit.  Claim to fame:  Creation of the eternity puzzle, a board game that Monckton believed was so challenging that he offered 1 million euros to the first person to solve it. It was solved in 16 months. Credited by many think tanks as an expert in the field of global warming. Profile at the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) says:   His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 – the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate.  Monckton later conceded that claiming to be a Nobel Peace Laureate was a joke.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:     1.  In a letter to Pope Francis originally posted by Marc Morano :  I have listened carefully, and I can inform Your Holiness that science is divided on the climate question. A small number of totalitarian profiteers of doom in various self-serving national academies have issued pompous statements about it, but a large number of papers from reputable scientists, and a larger amount of hard data, suggest that global warming is and will continue to be a non-event.    2.  There has been no global warming for 18 full years (since 1997).    3.  Global warming is Bullshit! Obama cannot hear you. Global warming is? bullshit. That’s bettah.    3.  Yes, there is a greenhouse effect. Yes, CO2 contributes to it. Yes, it causes warming. Yes, we emit CO2. Yes, warming will result. But not a lot.    4.  Why haven’t air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN’s models predicted? Because the science is bad, the ‘consensus is wrong, and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann was as right about energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms.    5.  Monckton showed a graph he had developed and claimed it hasn’t been shown in mainstream media for political reasons.  It’s very rare to see such information because the so-called mainstream news media, they are all in the hands of totalitarians, communists, fascists, socialists, call them what you will, and they will no longer tell you anything like this even though that is a fact. That is true. They don’t tell you because it doesn’t fit the communist party line on the climate.    6.  You’ve been told that climate change is settled science, yes? You’ve heard that, right? Well it isn’t settled science.    7.  You don’t have to worry about the cuddly polar bear. They are going to be just fine. Because what this means is that global warming will not affect us for the next 2,000 years, and if it does, it won’t have been caused by us. I therefore declare the climate scare officially over.    8.  This environmental treaty process has nothing to do with the weather. It has nothing to do with man’s impact on the weather. It has everything to do with establishing the socialist international at the heart of the UN and making every nation bow the knee to this new dictatorship, and the climate is merely a fig leaf to cover what they are trying to do.    9.  My message to the Pope would be, don’t take sides on the science. Don’t make the same mistake as seven out of ten judges in the trial of Galileo, when they invited him to retract his views.    10.  At the Vatican:  The main reason, Your Holiness, of why we are here today, is it is not the business of the church to stray from the field of faith and morals and wonder into the playground that is science… it is not the business of the church to pronounce on science.  11. You will get 100 year records set with exactly the same frequency they always have. What you can’t say is that it is getting any worse.    12. Now, part of the problem with the climate debate is that so much gas board language like that has been used and there’s been too little plain, scientific, and economic thinking. And so, the entire political class has been captured by an idea, which as always with the best bad ideas has a grain of truth in it, which is then exaggerated beyond all reason. This has happened before—one thinks of the Dreyfus case, for instance.    13.  The breaching of the Berlin Wall and the melting down of the Iron Curtain marked not the end of totalitarianism, but the end of its confinement. The new menace to liberty is groupthink gone global. The globalization of groupthink is guilefully disguised under the green fig leaf of pietistic environmentalism. From behind that fig leaf, emerges today’s tumescent totem of totalitarian tyranny: climate change.    14.  The only scientists who are capable of coming to a conclusion as barking mad as that [that climate change is man-made] are computer modelists. And these are typically zitty teenagers sitting in dark rooms with a can of Coca-Cola and too many doughnuts and playing on their Xbox 360.    15. Even among governments now there is a realization that even if the science were as settled as the usual suspects are trying to tell us it is, the economic side of it is really very clear and that is that it is orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost effective to do nothing now and sit back and enjoy the sunshine than it is to try and spend money now on making global warming go away. It’s cheaper to let it happen and adapt in a focussed way to any adverse consequences of warming that may occur.    16. The right response to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing.    17.  Mitigation is always unnecessary – it is also disproportionately expensive. Green jobs are the new euphemism for mass unemployment.    AND THEN THERE IS THIS FROM ED HAWKINS  Image
  71. PATRICK MOORE:   Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University, Ph.D., Forestry, University of British Columbia, Honors B.Sc. in Forest Biology, University of British Columbia.  Canadian nuclear energy advocate and founder of Greenspirit Enterprises, a PR company that works “with organizations in forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture and plastics, developing solutions in the areas of natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change.  Often incorrectly referred to as a founder of Greenpeace. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada he is not the founder of Greenpeace.  He broke away from Greenpeace after he concluded that “the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.  After he left Greenpeace, Moore began work with the Nuclear Energy Institute front group, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy). Moore has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry, and in defense of biotechnology. Greenpeace issued a 2010 statement distancing itself from Moore, saying he “exploits long gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.Moore has been criticized for his relations with “polluters and clear-cutters” through his consultancy. His primary income since the early 1990s has been consulting and publicly speaking for a variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  I didn’t say CO2 emissions were not affecting climate change. I said that it is an insignificant effect. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is in the atmosphere at four one hundredths of a percent. How can something in the atmosphere that is invisible, tasteless, odorless, colorless at 0.04% be the most powerful agent in the universe at this point in time? Obviously the climate changed dramatically throughout history with nothing to do with CO2.     2.   There is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age.     3.  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,    4.  We do not know if we are a small or large part of the present global warming. It is not possible through science to determine an exact answer to this question. Certainly the natural factors, and there are many, that have acted to change the climate many times through the history of the Earth, are still operating today. They have not gone away. But human emissions of CO2 is a new natural factor. So it is very unlikely that we are the only factor causing the present global warming but we may be one of the factors.     5.  Global warming and the melting of glaciers is positive because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees. Any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the emission of so-called greenhouse gases should include increased use of nuclear energy.     6. The fact is fossil fuels are 100 percent organic as in the scientific definition of organic. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. Organic used in food is a marketing term. Nothing to do with science. Produced with solar energy, 100%, they are a product of life fossil fuels. They are not some evil demon sent here from hell. They produce the two most important foods for life when they’re burnt: CO2 and water and they are the largest storage battery of energy on this planet. So I say celebrate CO2. It is the most life-giving substance along with water on this planet and it’s doing the world a lot of good.    7.  The word consensus, when used in a sentence with science, is false because consensus is a political and social work and that is a different arena than science.     8.   The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees. Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth. This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years. The one-sided political treatment of CO2 as a pollutant that should be radically reduced must be corrected in light of the indisputable scientific evidence that it is essential to life on Earth.  9.  “Human emissions of CO2 have already saved life on our planet from a very untimely end. That in the absence of our emitting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere from whence it came in the first place, most or perhaps all life on Earth would begin to die less than two million years from today. To conclude, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the stuff of life, the staff of life, the currency of life, indeed the backbone of life on Earth.    10.  If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere there would be no life on this planet. Surely that should be enough to permit questioning the certainty of those who demonize this key molecule,” Moore wrote in the opinion section of The Province. “We should celebrate CO2 as the giver of life it is.    11.  When we started Greenpeace it was to stop nuclear war and the destruction of human civilisation, that of course is the peace in Greenpeace. The ‘green’ is the environment and that’s good as well, but they lost the concerns for human. They have turned, basically, into an evil organisation.           12.  Why did I leave Greenpeace after 15 years? When I began with Greenpeace, they had a strong humanitarian orientation to stop all-out nuclear war, to save civilization from destruction. By the time I left 15 years later—that’s the ‘peace’ in Greenpeace of course—by the time I left 15 years later, Greenpeace had drifted into a position along with the rest of the movement as characterizing humans as the enemies of the Earth.
  72. MARC MORANO:   B.A., Political Science, George Mason University.Executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. HERE DESMOG INSERTS ITS STANDARD FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY FUNDING TEXT:  KOCHMorano has no scientific expertise in this area but he has become a prominent climate change denier. He has been called “the Matt Drudge of climate denial,” the “King of the skeptics,” and a “central cell of the climate-denial machine.” He was also listed as one of 17 top “climate killers” by Rolling Stone Magazine. He has accused climate scientists of “fear mongering,” and has claimed that proponents of man-made global warming are “funded to the tune of $50 billion.STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.  Carbon pricing harkens back to the idea, you know, that Massachusetts had to deal with, is the witchcraft trials. The idea that witches change the weather. Now they’re claiming SUVs and our coal plants are changing the weather.    2.  The bottom line is, not only do we not face a climate crisis, but if we face a climate crisis what Congress is proposing, what the United Nations is proposing, is scientifically meaningless. It would have no detectable impact. So we’d all be doomed if we had to rely on them for a solution.    3.  If people want to do meaningless symbolism, there’s no reason to do it at the national level where it’s going to cost a lot of money across all 50 states. If people want to waste money and do symbolic gestures and start ratcheting down their cities’ energy use and emissions and start putting in mandates for energy that doesn’t produce the same for fossil fuels – more power to them. But the big news here is the United States as a country is saying ‘no’ to the United Nations.     4.  Accurate climate science is being suppressed, meaning the kids don’t get to hear opposing views. It’s narrative-crafting, the same kind of thing you would expect from any partisan campaign group. And then you add in the media, with people like Leonardo DiCaprio and Laurie David telling kids if you’re a global warming skeptic, you are not cool. I guess they’re afraid the kids will instantly become skeptics if they hear any opposing ideas.    5.  The Pope has picked a contentious scientific issue which – now going on almost two decades of no global warming, sea ice recovering, sea level rise actually decelerating, On every metric from polar bears on down, the global warming narrative has weakened. And to now have the Pope jump on that bandwagon would sow confusion among Catholics.
  73. NILS-AXEL MORNER:    Ph.D., Geology, Professor Emeritus University of Stockholm.  Former Head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:   1.   To Roger Tattersall:  The mechanism of climate change has absolutely nothing to do with the increasing CO2, but is primarily driven by the sun. We don’t need all this kind of mitigation especially putting money in fighting CO2. There is climate change, but there are natural ups an downs.    2.  To UK Parliament Select Committee on Economic Affars:  Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day. This is what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is that there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere and global temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear relationship with Solar variability; not CO2. For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data.    3.  His booklet “The Greatest Lie Ever Told” The rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models simply cannot happen.    4.  If you have a temperature rise, if it’s a problem in one area, it’s beneficial in another area. But sea level is the real ‘bad guy,’ and therefore they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is, that sea level rise doesn’t exist in observational data, only in computer modeling.    5. HERE DESMOG INSERTS ITS STANDARD TEXT ON REBEKAH MERCER AND DIRTY MONEY FROM THE MERCER FAMILYDemonstrators holding placards and banners during a protest

74.  VACLAV KLAUS:    An Economist. PhD in Economics at the Institute of Economics of the Czech Academy of Sciences.  The second President of the Czech Republic (2003-2013) and a former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic (1992–1997). 

Co-founder of the Civic Democratic Party, the major Czech right-wing party and  outspoken climate change skeptic who has spoken at a number of International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCCs) hosted by the Heartland Institute. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.  Contrary to the artificially and unjustifiably created worldwide perception, the increase in global temperatures has been – in the last years, decades and centuries – very small in historical comparisons and practically negligible in its actual impact upon human beings and their activities… . Contrary to many self-assured and self-serving proclamations, there is no scientific consensus about the causes of recent climate changes… . I have to conclude that the risk is too small, the costs of eliminating it too high and the application of the ‘precautionary principle is a wrong strategy.    2.  I’m absolutely convinced that the very small global warming we are experiencing is the result of natural causes.  It’s a cyclical phenomenon in the history of the Earth. The role of man is very small, almost negligible.    3.  As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism.    4.  And finally, there is another danger: the emergence of non-ideological but very aggressive ‘isms,’ as in  ‘human rightism,  environmentalism,  feminism, multiculturalism, NGOism.     5.  The climate change debate is frankly not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, which is a new anti-individualistic, pseudo-collectivistic ideology based on putting nature and environment and their supposed protection and preservation before and above freedom.    6.  There is another threat on the horizon. I see this threat in environmentalism which is becoming a new dominant ideology, if not a religion. Its main weapon is raising the alarm and predicting the human life endangering climate change based on man-made global warming… . It became politically correct to caricature us, who dare to speak about it, as those who are talking about things they do not understand and are not experts on. This criticism is inappropriate. People like me do not have ambitions to enter the field of climatology. They do not try to better measure global temperature or to present alternative scenarios of the future global climate fluctuations.    7.  To reduce the interpretation of the causality of all kinds of climate changes and of global warming to one variable, CO2, or to a small proportion of one variable — human-induced CO2 — is impossible to accept. Elementary rationality and my decades-long experience with econometric modelling and statistical testing of scientific hypotheses tell me that it is impossible to make strong conclusions based on mere correlation of two time series.    8.  I’m convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature. That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished.    9. Honorary Patron” and member of a group titled Climate Exit (Clexit) founded in the summer of 2016. According to Clexit’s founding statement, “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.    10.  According to Clexit’s founding statement: “If the Paris climate accord is ratified, or enforced locally by compliant governments, it will strangle the leading economies of the world with pointless carbon taxes and costly climate and energy policies, all with no sound basis in evidence.

75.  JOANNE NOVA/CODLING:    BS Microbiology, University of Western Australia. Graduate Certificate in Science Communications from the Australian National University. Professional speaker, Director of Science Speak, and the writer and creator of the JoNova blog, and one of Australia’s prominent climate change sceptics. She believes that carbon may have “a little effect” on the atmosphere. Had joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus, a program that employs university students to travel around Australia teaching interactive science programs to children. Author of The Skeptic’s Handbook which asserts global warming is not caused by greenhouse gases and that the world has not warmed since 2001 and that global warming is a natural process. DeSmog, among other sources, has debunked the handbook.  Joanne Nova runs Science Speak with her partner David Evans…a small private scientific modeling and mathematical research company that also speaks about some science and economic issues. With the exception of “The Skeptic’s Handbook,” Nova’s written commentary on the failures of science communicators and journalists on the issue of global warming has been relatively limited to her personal blog, ScienceSpeak.com, and local Australian newspapers. STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:     1. Global warming started 200 years ago, but human emissions of CO2 were bugger-all-of-nothing until after World War II. Humans have put out nearly 90% of all our CO2 molecules ever since the War started. We’ve put out 30% of all our emissions ever since the year 2000. The message hammered home over and over, is that temperatures don’t correlate at all well with our CO2 emissions and never have.    2.  And as far as evidence goes, surprisingly, I agree with the IPCC that carbon dioxide warms the planet. But few realize that the IPCC relies on feedback factors like humidity and clouds causing a major amplification of the minor CO2 effect and that this amplification simply isn’t there.  Without this amplification from water vapor or clouds the infamous ‘3.5 degrees of warming’ collapses to just a half a degree, most of which has happened.    3.  The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) lists Joanne Nova as a “qualified endorser” of the Manhattan Declaration. The ICSC defines a qualified endorser as an individual that is “well-trained in science and technology or climate change-related economics and policy.  Those who sign the Manhattan Declaration must agree, among other things, that “global warming is not a global crisis and that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change.     4.  Citing a graph posted in an advert the Institute-of-Public-Affairs-connected Climate Study Group, calling it “death to climate models,” Nova wrote:  Good people of Earth are spending thousands of billions of dollars to prevent a future predicted by models that we know don’t work. The debate is over, climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather. Just another iteration of what Druids and Witchdoctors have been promising for eons.    5.  The real story is that everyone wants a nicer climate, but most people know it’s a waste of money. That’s why this is a dead topic in the election.     6.  About the Paris climate accord:  What they need right now is a game-changer, and if they can’t get it then, true to form, they will manufacture the illusion of it.     7.  About the 97% consensus:  Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call ‘climate scientists’ who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions.     8.  There is a good reason the club of climate scientists are failing to convince other scientists — their evidence is weak — and any good scientist can see that.    9.   If, hypothetically, there are scientific gaps in the theory of man-made global warming, for the most part we are leaving it up to volunteers to find them. It’s as if the government has funded a team of QCs for the prosecution, but spent nothing on legal aid for the defence.     10.  The swelling ranks of sceptical scientists is now the largest whistle-blowing cohort in science ever seen. It includes some of the brightest: two with Nobel prizes in physics, four NASA astronauts, 9000 PhDs in science, and another 20,000 science graduates to cap it off. A recent US Senate minority report contained 1000 names of eminent scientists who are sceptical, and the term professor pops up more than 500 times in that list.    11.  In the head-spinning cosmos of climate change, everyday hundreds of people claim there are ‘thousands of papers’ in support of a theory, yet no one can actually name one single paper with empirical evidence that shows carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of global warming.

76.  JORDAN PETERSON:  Clinical Psychologist and Professor at the University of Toronto.   Ph.D. Clinical Psychology, McGill University.  Media personality. Regularly talks about personal responsibility, truth, and meaning in life.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  1.  Whether the issue of climate change could unite the political left and right.  That’s not going to unite us. First of all, it’s very difficult to separate the science from the politics in climate change and second, even if the more radical claims are true we have no idea what to do about it. If you go out 50 years the error bars around the projections are already so wide that we won’t be able to measure the positive or negative effects of anything we do right now. So how in the world are you going to solve a problem when you can’t even measure the consequence of your actions – like, how is that even possible? 

77.   ROGER PIELKE JR.  Climate Science Policy writer at the University of Colorado, PhD Political Science. Started studying extreme weather and climate in 1991 at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO. He discusses his views on climate policy in the book The Climate Fix.  He says that he is not a climate change skeptic, and accepts that man-made climate change is a real problem. He opposes the idea that extreme weather events and climate change are connected. His father, Roger A. Pielke Sr., is also an outspoken critic of the IPCC. Pielke Jr. has described research showing the link between extreme weather and climate change as “zombie science. Critics say that he is playing footsie with denialists, that his works are cited mainly be climate deniers, and that he is featured mostly on denier blogs and websites. Joe Romm describes him as the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere, especially on the subject of extreme weather and climate change.

78:   PETER RIDD:   PhD, Physics, James Cook University.   Former professor at James Cook University in Australia. Geophysicist with interests in “coastal oceanography, the effects of sediments on coral reefs, instrument development, geophysical sensing of the earth, past and future climates, atmospheric modelling. He was fired from James Cook University in May 2018 for allegedly breaching his employment’s code of conduct.  Ridd raises his research funds from the profits of consultancy work monitoring marine dredging operation. The Marine Geophysics Laboratory at JCU has been involved in consulting for a range of coal terminal projects in 2012, funds which go to PhD scholarship and the staff of the MGL. In 2018, Ridd launched the website ”Great Barrier Reef Science Commentary” where he has covered a legal case between himself and James Cook University. Ridd has claimed the University is trying to silence him through a censure and then a disciplinary allegation of serious misconduct related to disparaging comments about two institutions linked to JCU — the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. Ridd was featured in the IPA publication “Climate Change: The Facts 2017” in which he wrote that coral is the “least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change.” The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a group funded by mining magnate Gina Rinehart and known for opposing policy actions on climate change, has supported Peter Ridd by gathering funds to cover legal costs in the case he filed against.

Ridd is director and scientific coordinator at the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF), described by critics as a front group funded by the IPA. Jennifer Marohasy of the IPA, initially served as AEF’s chairwoman. Ridd named Marohasy directly while thanking donors to his GoFundMe campaign that raised over $260,000 to cover his legal fees fighting against JCU.

STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:  Ridd was a signatory to : 1.   We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect,.     2.  There needs to be a properly funded group of scientists whose sole job is to find fault in the science with which we are basing expensive public policy decisions.    3. Corals as the “least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change. Due to the remarkable mechanisms that corals have developed to adapt to changing temperatures, especially the ability to swap symbionts, corals are perhaps the least endangered of any ecosystem to future climate change – natural or man-made.    4. Climate change deniers don’t get sufficient funding. Che current scientific climate is like a court case in China.   5.  Corals are particularly well adapted to temperature changes and in general, the warmer the better. It seems odd that coral scientists are worrying about global warming because this is one group of organisms that like it hot. Corals are most abundant in the tropics and you certainly do not find fewer corals closer to the equator. Quite the opposite, the further you get away from the heat, the worse the corals. A cooling climate is a far greater threat.    6.   In biological circles, it is common to compare coral reefs to canaries, i.e. beautiful and delicate organisms that are easily killed. The analogy is pushed further by claiming that, just as canaries were used to detect gas in coal mines, coral reefs are the canaries of the world and their death is a first indication of our apocalyptic greenhouse future. The bleaching events of 1998 and 2002 were our warning. Heed them now or retribution will be visited upon us. In fact a more appropriate creature with which to compare corals would be cockroaches – at least for their ability to survive. If our future brings us total self-annihilation by nuclear war, pollution or global warming, my bet is that both cockroaches and corals will survive.    7.    There is a swindle by scientists, politicians and most green organisations regarding the health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). We are told that the reef is a third of the way to ecological extinction, is being smothered by sediments, is polluted by nutrients and pesticides, and is being cooked by global warming. Some scientists and organisations give the reef only a couple of decades before it is finished.

79.  MATT RIDLEY:   PhD Zoology, Oxford University. DSc FRSL FMedSci.
Conservative hereditary peer in the British House of Lords, a science writer, journalist, and popular author. Matt Ridley has written several books on evolution and genetics as well as books on economics including The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.  Won a seat in the House of Lords in 2013, a position he has used to discuss climate change and advocate for “Brexit”. Chaired the UK bank Northern Rock where he was responsible for a “high-risk, reckless business strategy.

From December 2010 to August 2013, Ridley voiced his skepticism of climate change through his regular column in the Wall Street Journal, “Mind of Matter.” He has written for The Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, the Times, The Guardian, New Scientist, New Statesman, Time, Newsweek and The New York Times. He is an advisor to the WPF), a group founded by climate science denier Lord Nigel Lawson.

Coal Interests:  I have a financial interest in coal mining on my family’s land. The details are commercially confidential, but I have always been careful to disclose that I have this interest in my writing when it is relevant; I am proud that the coal mining on my land contributes to the local and national economy; and that my income from coal is not subsidized and not a drain on the economy through raising energy prices. I deliberately do not argue directly for the interests of the modern coal industry and I consistently champion the development of gas reserves, which is a far bigger threat to the coal-mining industry than renewable energy can ever be.  STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.  What about the climate change debate? Because this is where I’ve been criticized for being too optimistic. And let me state very clearly that I am someone who thinks that global warming is real, is happening, and is at least partly, possibly largely man-made. And that in that sense the physics is undeniable, and the trend is clear. But it is happening slower than forecast  and the effects of climate change are not showing up as bad as we had feared by now.    2.  I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.    3.  I am not a ‘denier’. I fully accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the climate has been warming and that man is very likely to be at least partly responsible. You can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be.    4.  Thus Paris embodies precisely what the green movement worried about after Copenhagen: that a weak and non-binding agreement would be worse than futile. Yet the disastrous Kyoto story is repeating itself; adherence to Paris has become a totem of global determination to tackle climate change while the agreement seems purpose-built to prevent the very economic sophistication on which any low-carbon future depends.    5.  So far, the benefits of global greening have been greater than expected, while the costs of global warming have been smaller than expected and the price of reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been higher than expected. That price is falling more heavily on poor than on rich people. The evidence suggests that this imbalance will persist for most of this century, perhaps longer. It is time for a rethink.    6. Fracking has been tested tens of thousands of times in America with very few environmental problems. In that decade, America has used this technique to smash the oil and gas price, transform its economy and cut its carbon emissions. We’ve spent the decade in a futile attempt to placate a handful of implacable green fanatics.    7.   Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try at condemning fossil fuels. Even if the world warms as much as the consensus expects, the net harm still looks small alongside the real harm now being done by preventable causes; and if it does warm this much, it will be because more people are rich enough to afford to do something about it.

80:  ROY SPENCER:   Ph.D., M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, B.S., Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan.  Research Scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He operates his own blog on global warming where he describes himself as a “climatologist, author, and former NASA scientist. Advisor to the Cornwall Alliance, an evangelical Christian group that claims environmentalism is “one of the greatest threats to society.  His website says the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming in the last 100 years.

STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.  We’re warmer than we’ve been in probably a few centuries, and I think some of that warmth is due to the CO2 we’re producing, but the warming is not nearly as fast as what has been predicted. I think about half of it’s natural, and from a policy standpoint there’s really nothing we could do about the human caused portion of it anyway.    2.  Global warming is not something that we should be terribly worried about from a policy perspective, which is my view,     3.  There’s probably a natural reason for global warming. We will look back on it as a gigantic false alarm.    4.  The Earth isn’t that sensitive to how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. I think we need to consider the possibility that more carbon dioxide is better than less.    5.  I wish I could tell you that we know things for sure, but in science we don’t know anything for sure. I tell people, science isn’t truth it’s just our idea of how things should work, and usually scientists are wrong.     5.  About Al Gore: For instance, melting on the Greenland ice sheet. That happens every summer, but he makes it sound like it’s due to us. Rising sea level in Miami Beach. That is partly natural and it’s partly because Miami Beach was built on reclaimed swampland, which is sinking just as fast as sea level has been rising for the last 150 years.    6. Temperatures are not rising nearly as fast as the climate models say it should be rising. And those climate models are what are being used to dictate our future energy policy.     7.  Global warming is not something that anybody will ever feel in their lifetime.     8.   I am one of the skeptics who believes that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, theoretically, should cause some warming. I would expect slow warming to continue in the future–but I wouldn’t bet money on it.    9.  I’m somewhat of a rocket scientist. I can tell you, predicting climate change isn’t rocket science. It’s way harder than that.    10.  Besides, if global warming is settled science, like gravity or the Earth not being flat, why isn’t the agreement percent? And since when is science settled by a survey or a poll? The hallmark of a good scientific theory is its ability to make good predictions. From what we’ve seen, global warming theory is definitely lacking in this regard.     11.  We have no idea what’s natural and what’s man made. There is no fingerprint of human-caused warming.     12.  All scientists should be skeptics. The reason why is that, even with the best of scientific measurements, we can come up with all kinds of explanations of what those measurements mean in terms of cause and effect, and yet most of those explanations are wrong. It’s really easy to be wrong in science … it’s really hard to be right.     13.  Twice I have testified in Congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding natural reasons for climate change.    14.   Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there’s a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it’s warmed in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there’s this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don’t agree with the idea that we are causing climate change.     15.   We see something change in our climate and we blame ourselves.  I don’t think we understand what happens. We can watch it happen on the climate models, we know it happens, but we don’t know for sure how it happens.

81MALCOLM ROBERTS:   BE, Engineering, University of Queensland., MBA, Business, University of Chicago.   Former Australian Senator for the far-right political party One Nation.  In 2017, he was found ineligible to sit in federal parliament due to his dual citizenship.  Roberts, a former coal miner and mining industry consultant, worked as the volunteer project manager for the Australia-based climate science denial organization The Galileo Movement.    STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.  It is clear that climate change is a scam. Changes in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere are a result of changes in temperature, not a cause.    2.  Debated Climate Scientist Professor Brian Cox.   Roberts:  We’ve had a pause in this so-called warming for now 21 years.   Cox:  This chart shows temperatures going up.   Roberts:  The data has been corrupted, and we know that the 1930s were warmer than today.   Cox:  What do you mean by “corrupted“?  Roberts:  Manipulated by NASA as Steve Goddard has shown.  {the response by Cox is not in the DeSmog text}.   3.   In a review of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) report on climate change, Roberts claimed that “UN IPCC reports are written by junior scientists and by political activists, ideologues and extremists funded by foundations with close connections to international bankers pushing global governance.    4.  Logical scientific reasoning and empirical scientific evidence proves human CO2 cannot affect global warming.  Carbon dioxide levels in air are a consequence of temperature, not a cause.    5.  In his report for the Galileo Movement on “Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Facts”  Ironically, burning coal simply returns carbon to carbon dioxide from where it came during formation of massive forests that later formed coal. Burning coal though cannot raise CO2 levels as levels are determined by Nature,” Roberts wrote in the document.     6.  Roberts called for an inquiry into the Bureau of Meteorology, alleging that they had interfered with climate data.    7.  Given the serious questions about BoM’s interference with temperature data and reports of faulty measurements and recording equipment, why does the government not want a thorough external independent inquiry and audit of BoM?    8.  Malcolm Roberts brings up a hoax gender studies paper titled “The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct” in an attempt to discredit the peer review process, and question Australia’s CSIRO, despite the Australian science body having no connection to the paper in question.     9.  In that they claimed that penises caused climate change,” Roberts said in his testimony. “So, the point I’m getting at, is that was published in a social sciences — admitedly — paper, but it has credibility because it’s been peer reviewed. So I’m very concerned about some of the peer-reviewed papers.”

82:  CRAIG RUCKER:   M.P.A., SUNY Albany.   Co-founder and executive director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which was founded in 1985 to “promote a positive voice on environment and development issues.  Rucker’s strong belief in the “power of the market combined with the applications of safe technologies,” to “offer humanity practical solutions to many of the world’s pressing concerns,” resulted in a number of leading scientists, academics, and policy leaders joining Rucker in his CFACT efforts, according to CFACT’.  Those who joined Rucker’s CFACT include co-founder David Rothbard, as well as Director of Communications, Marc Morano, and Senior Policy Advisor, Paul Driessen.   EVIL FUNDING SOURCES OF CFACT ARE LISTED BY DESMOGKOCH

Rucker has decades of experience providing “expertise to a wide range of government, academic, media, and industry forums,” with his written work appearing in media outlets including The Wall Street Journal, CNN, USA Today, and the BBC. While at CFACT, Rucker has held the “primary responsibility for helping build CFACT’s Collegians program on more than 40 campuses across the country,” and has both attended and brought teams of student delegates to UN conferences in Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, Montreal, and more.    STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:     1.   CFACT is committed to educating the public and exposing global warming for what it truly is — a massive redistribution scheme. This scheme is not designed to strengthen the U.S. economy, but to throttle it down.     2.  On the Paris Agreement:  This agreement will not meaningfully alter the temperature of the Earth, even under the U.N.’s own computer models.  The bad news is that it plants the seeds of a new UN climate regime that left unchecked will swell into a bureaucratic behemoth.     3.   CFACT students ventured outside the air conditioned comfort of the conference center yesterday and took to the Cancun streets spelling out, “stop energy poverty now!” and voicing their opposition to a climate treaty loud and clear. It is easy for us to envision the harm a global warming treaty would do to the United States and its allies, but do give thought to the devastating trap it will create for the those who have never had electricity.  Renewable energy schemes can no longer be justified by claims that we are rapidly running out of fossil fuels that are causing dangerous man-made global warming. Hydraulic fracturing has obliterated the depletion myth, while climate change fears are belied by a 16-year hiatus from planetary warming, historic lows in hurricane and tornado activity, and the abject failure of CO2-focused climate computer models.    4.  President Obama’s alternative strategy of using the EPA and other agencies to wage a backdoor war on carbon energy through misdirection and pretext, robs the people and their elected representatives, who would not support these restrictions voluntarily, of their constitutional prerogatives. Green movement radicals have always been at their core, fundamentally anti-democratic.    5.  Observational science just isn’t there for global warming extremism. The UK’s Met Office data shows no warming for the past 16 years. NOAA’s data shows any warming there may have been, has been confined to only three quarters of a degree. How much (if any) of that little bit of warming is due to your over the top car driving, air traveling, warm single family home lifestyle is more than debatable.    6.   What should Washington due about warming? Harken to Hippocrates and ‘first, do no harm.’ From CFACT’s considered perspective, Washington should find the courage to do nothing.

83:    BURT RUTAN:   B.S. Aeronautical Engineering, California Polytechnic University.
Marketing and Personnel Management graduate level courses, Golden Gate College.
Academic portion of Aerospace Research Pilots School, Edwards AFB.
Honorary Doctor of Science, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo,

Rutan describes his work with climate science as one of his “Hobbies. Burt Rutan is an American aerospace engineer who became famous for designing the Voyager, which was the first plane to fly around the world without stopping or refueling. He founded the aerospace research firm Scaled Composites in 1982.  He currently serves as Scaled Composites’ Chief Technical Officer and following his retirement, will assume the title of founder and chairman emeritus.

STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:

My study is NOT as a climatologist, but from a completely different perspective in
which I am an expert.  For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. I became a cynic; My conclusion – ‘if someone is aggressively selling a technical product who’s merits are dependent on complex experimental data, he is likely lying’. That is true whether the product is an airplane or a Carbon Credit.     2.  I do not hide the fact that I have a clear bias on AGW. My bias is based on fear of Government expansion and the observation of AGW data presentation fraud – and not based on any financial or other personal benefit.    3.  Rutan is one of 16 scientists who appended their signatures to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.  The article argues that elected officials should avoid implementing climate change policy because it would divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of ‘incontrovertible’ evidence.     4.  Media Matters says that of  the 16 scientists who signed the Op-Ed, most have not published any research in the area of climate science. Many, including Burt Rutan, have experience in fields entirely unrelated to climate science. Numerous other signatories also have connections to the oil and gas industry, or to industry think tanks.    5.  The problem is that scientists, no matter how good they are, don’t know how to predict and model cloud formation and precipitation,” he said. “As the temperatures were going up from 1970-98, precipitation was going up. As the temperatures started dropping since 1998, precipitation has gone down.     6.   He claimed to present data that proved global warming was false. He also described how “CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant. It’s been 20 times as high as it now. If you have a 1.2 percent increase in cloud formation and precipitation, it offsets a 100 percent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.    7.   In his presentation, Rutan describes his “recommendations” as to “Drop the CCC (Climate Change Crisis) and all Cap & Trade legislation. CCC is naive, non-scientific, irrelevant, hopeless and oxymoronic. Its alarmists can use it to destroy US global competitiveness through Cap and Trade taxes.”

84:   NICOLA SCAFETTA:  Ph.D., Physics, University of North Texas.
Research scientist at Duke University Physics Department known for proposing a phenomenological theory of climate change, claiming that oscillations induced by solar changes and other astronomical influences can affect climate.

STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.  At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system.”    2.  The climate models cannot be considered validated and therefore cannot be used to do prediction of the future.    3.  If climate is as sensitive to solar changes as the above phenomenological findings suggest, the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly overestimated.    4.  Spoke on “Advances in Understanding Natural Climate Change at Heartland meeting in Europe.    5.  Essentially the climate system is a very complex, there is one part of anthropogenic forcing. It is a very, very weaker, much weaker than what the IPCC claims, at least half,” Scafetta claimed in his talk.    6.  There is some volcano activity, so there is, some internal variability, but essentially there is also a dynamic component, a harmonic component which is regulated by astronomical forcing. And so this forcing is driven by the movement of the planets around the sun that creates some set of stable resonance that will synchronize the solar and climate activity.”    7.  Contributor to Climate Change: The Facts 2017, a book released by the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) and edited by Jennifer Marohasy.

85:     NIR SHAVIV:   Ph.D., Physics. Israel Institute of Technology, Associate professor of Physics at the Racah Institute at the The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He contends that the sun’s rays are the primary driver of climate change.  Dr. Shaviv says that he is not funded by the oil industry or large corporations. Nir Shaviv is a regular speaker at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Chance (ICCC), and has been listed as an advisor to both the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).  He has denied his affiliation with CFACT.  Although he is skeptical of man-made climate change, he stresses that there are a dozen good reasons why we should strive to burn less fossil fuels. His two primary reasons are pollution and depletion. He is in favor of developing cheap energy alternatives such as wind and solar power.   STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.   As an astrophysicist, I see that the scope of solar effects considered by the IPCC is very limited; thus it arrives at wrong conclusions about what causes climate change.  For instance, the increase in solar activity over the 20th century implies that more than half of the warming should be attributed to the sun, not to emissions from human activity.    2.   Nir Shaviv argues that solar activity is the primary driver of climate change.  When there are fewer ions, the clouds that are formed are composed of large drops. Clouds of this type are less white and refract less of the sun’s rays outward, and so the heat is preserved and the earth gets warmer.    3.   In a view opposite to that of the IPCC, Dr. Shaviv believes that increasing temperatures lead to an increase in carbon dioxide, and not the other way around. He contends that “if we double the amount of CO2 by 2100, we will only increase the temperature by about one degree Celsius.     4.   According to Shaviv, two thirds of the warming in the 20th century were caused by natural factors, and only one third by anthropogenic causes. He does stress anthropogenic causes will most likely be the dominant driver of warming in the 21st century. That being said, Shaviv is against the Kyoto Protocol and believes that “the hysteria surrounding the concept of ‘global warming’ will fade over the years.     5.  In fact, there is no substantial evidence which proves that CO2 and other GHGs are the primary cause for the warming, and not some other mechanism. You may have seen articles which point to the contrary, that there is clear evidence, but if you dig deeply into them, you will realize that these are merely suggestions for a CO2 climate link and not evidence.     6.  A business as usual scenario will give you a warming over the 21st century, which is modest. How modest? Well within the goals set in Copenhagen or in Paris.     7.  What I want to emphasize is that it is not really important what the mechanism linking solar activity to climate it is because we see that such a link exists, and that it’s very large.     8.  There are basically two main arguments that are being used to ‘prove’ that humans are accountable for the global warming and these arguments are wrong.     9.   Science is not a democracy. If you have an argument with someone and they tell you, look, 97 percent of the people say that it’s this or that, it doesn’t imply that it’s so. It’s totally irrelevant. You know, 100 percent of the people who could have said the earth is flat, it wouldn’t have implied that they’re right.” —   10.  If you see a polar bear floating on an iceberg somewhere, it doesn’t mean that it has warmed, it doesn’t mean that it has warmed by humans, and it doesn’t even mean that they’re less polar bears.  It’s just noise around us trying to interfere with the real science.     11.   As a result of the ClimateGate emails, We know that this hockey stick is a hockey stitch and that the hockey stick is nothing.     12.  The main argument of the IPCC is flawed and there is no other argument that can prove that CO2 has a large effect on the temperature.    13.  There is no fingerprint that proves that CO2 has a large effect on climate. In fact, as I’ll show you, there is the opposite.      14.  You find that CO2  tends to lag behind the temperature. Okay. I don’t think the effect of CO2 is so large that it can affect the temperature even before it starts increasing.    15.   All the models telling you that the temperature will increase by a lot, that the Antarctica will melt, to that penguins s will find themselves—I don’t know where—they’re all based on models which are not taking the sun into account and are therefore highly exaggerated.”     16.   Future climate change is going to be much more benign.  There are no arguments, no valid arguments, that necessarily prove that a standard picture is correct.    17.   In the IPCC reports, they ignore the large effect that the sun has on climate.  

86:   WILLIE SOON:   Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, University of Southern California.  Aerospace Engineer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Since 1992, Dr. Soon has been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory. Soon is also a receiving editor with the journal New Astronomy.  Soon is a prominent climate change skeptic who has received much of his research funding from the oil and gas industry.   HERE DESMOG INSERTS ITS STANDARD EVIL FUNDING SOURCES TEXT: KOCH

Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas co-published a controversial review article titled “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years”(Climate Research, 2003). The article claims that the twentieth century was not the warmest century in the past 1,000 years and that the climate has not changed significantly during this time. Senator James Inhofe used this article as proof that climate change is caused by natural variability, not human activity.  After the article was published, three of the editors of Climate Research resigned in protest, including incoming editor-in-chief Hans von Storch. Storch declared the article was seriously flawed because “the conclusions were not supported by the evidence presented in the paper. In addition to the resignations, twelve of the scientists cited in the paper published a rebuttal stating that Soon and Baliunas had misinterpreted their work.   MORE ON EVIL FUNDING KOCH

STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:    1. The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic […] It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of ‘preventing catastrophic climate change’.     2.   No experimental data exist that support the view that the Earth’s climate is anomalous or changing in a dangerous manner. Instead we know that CO2 is the gas of life. … Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is merely a bit player in climate.

87:   HENRIK SVENSMARK:   Ph.D., Physics  Physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. Studied the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation and presented a hypotheses that global warming is caused by solar radiation by way of clouds. He describes this mechanism in the documentary  The Cloud Mystery

Henrik Svensmark is director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI). Previously, Dr. Svensmark was head of the Sunclimate group at DSRI. He has held post doctoral positions in physics at University California Berkeley, Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute.

STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.  I believe there’s no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas so there’s no doubt that CO2 is also affecting climate, but it looks as if that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is probably smaller because the sun is also part of what is going on.     2.  I don’t think that we are headed for disaster because there’s nothing in the record of data that indicates that the number of storms, droughts, hurricanes and so on are increasing as what you’d expect from all the things that you hear. So I don’t think that we are heading for a disaster, and if that climate sensitivity to CO2 is smaller than what you get from all these climate models, then the change in temperature, you know in the next fifty years, might be quite small.     3.   Climate change denial blog Watts Up With That offered a translation, including the following quote from Svensmark:  In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable.   4.   According to columnist Lawrence Solomon, “Dr. Svensmark has never disputed the existence of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect. To the contrary, he believes that an understanding of the sun’s role is needed to learn the full story, and thus determine man’s role. Not only does no climate model today consider the effect of cosmic particles, but even clouds are too poorly understood to be incorporated into any serious climate model.     5.   We are experiencing global cooling and temperatures have not increased for the past 20 years.  We expect that solar activity should cool the Earth, and it could actually be why the temperatures are not increasing. I mean, they haven’t been increasing for the past twenty years.     6.   Svensmark was quoted in the cover blurb for The Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change. During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds—and a warmer world.     7.  Svensmark appeared at a climate change denial symposium staged in the German parliament by the far right AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) party.  Germany’s AfD accelerated its promotion of climate change denial since the emergence of Swedish activist Greta Thunberg in August 2018. A smear campaign against Thunberg mocked her autism as a form of “psychosis. Carbon dioxide is plant nutrient.  

88.  ROGER TATTERSALL AKA TALLBLOKE:   History and Philosophy of Science — University of Leeds,  HNC Mechanical and Production Engineering Leeds Metropolitan University.  Tattersall was briefly the editor of a journal titled Pattern Recognition in Physics, along with fellow climate change deniers Nils-Axel Morner and J.-E. Solheim. He is the author of Skeptical Blog  Tallbloke’s Talkshop.  Tattersall was the former web content editor at the University of Leeds. Ownder operator of an IT service at Tallbloke.net.  Tallbloke’s Talkshop was one of four blogs to receive a comment by “FOIA” in November 2011, which linked to hacked e-mails obtained from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – Climategate episode.  Tattersall worked for a number of groups pushing for Brexit and served as Assistant Director at Leave.eu and Regional Campaign Executive at Grassroots Out. He is also listed as the Chief Executive of Clexit (Climate Exit), a group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU. According to Clexit’s founding statement, “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate. Christopher Monckton and Marc Morano are principals in Clexit.

Copernicus Publications pointed to one particular issue entitled “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts” — the same issue that Tattersall proudly displayed on his blog, highlighting his position as editor. Copernicus Publications noted.

STANCE ON CLIMATE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.  We think that the variation of the sun, and the variation of the orbital parameters of the planets in the solar system has a much bigger effect on changes in Earth’s surface temperature than the changing concentration of a minor trace gas such as carbon dioxide.     2.   The sun is the primary driver of climate change. Why do we spend our time working on obscure stuff about the way the planets and sun bob about in space? Because changes in solar output are the primary driver of climate change on Earth not changes in the atmosphere.    3.  I’m not a statistical expert but I think from an engineer’s perspective, this is a reasonable assessment of what’s going on. We’ve got a strong sun, we’ve got CO2 going up, we’ve got the positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. All from 1976 to 2003. No wonder the temperature went up. The question is, what was causing it? 

89:   RICHARD TOL:       Ph.D. Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1997.    Professor Richard Tol is an economist, academic and was an advisor to the climate denial organisation the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He says he specialises in assessing the economic implications of climate change impacts and policy approaches. His analysis suggests economic impacts from climate change are negligible and possibly beneficial, at least until the latter part of the 21st century. Tol has also worked closely with the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a US-registered think tank founded by Danish political scientist Dr Bjorn Lomborg. Tol is a Professor at the Department of Economics, University of Sussex, and a Professor at the Institute for Environmental Studies at VU University Amsterdam. He has been involved in writing United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports in various capacities as an author (contributing, lead, principal, and convening) for the working groups looking at the physical science, the impacts and the ways to mitigate climate change.  Richard Tol was previously a research professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, the Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University and an Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. According to his own Twitter biography, Richard Tol is the “scholar most-cited by Stern Review.” One profile of Tol describes him as a “Climate economist, unafraid to fight.  Since about June 2013, Tol has been engaged in a public fight with the authors of a popular scientific journal paper which found that 97 per cent of climate change studies carried out since 1991 agreed that global warming was mostly caused by human activity. Tol nevertheless agrees a scientific consensus on global warming exists, but argues over the methodology used to arrive at the 97% figure.

STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.  Humans are a tough and adaptable species. People live on the equator and in the Arctic, in the desert and in the rainforest. We survived ice ages with primitive technologies. The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable.     2.  Tol talked at a small gathering of climate change deniers at the UK’s House of Commons in London. During the meeting, Tol said:  From a selfish point of view I’d put my money into adaptation. We can adapt without having to seek cooperation from India and China. We would have much greater control over it.     3.   Writing in a working paper, Tol announces that a carbon tax is all that we need to combat climate change:  Climate change is a relatively small problem that can easily be solved: We just need a modest carbon taxFirst-best climate policy is simple: A uniform carbon tax, rising steadily over time, is all we need.     4.  It is pretty damn obvious that there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them.     5.   The impact of climate change is relatively small. The average impact on welfare is equivalent to losing a few per cent of income. That is, the impact of a century worth of climate change is comparable to the impact of one or two years of economic growth.

90:  ANTHONY WATTS:    Studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University. Apparently, he did not graduate.  He is a former television weatherman best known as the founder and editor of the blog Watts Up With That (WUWT), which primarily publishes articles critical of mainstream climate change science. Watts is a Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute, a think tank at the forefront of climate denial.

In terms of his profession, Watts is the director and president of IntelliWeather Inc., a weather graphics company alternatively known as Innovative Tech Works (ITWorks), and Weathershop. Watts also founded Surfacestations.org, a project with the stated purpose of documenting the siting quality of weather stations in the United States. Watts previously worked as an on-air weatherman for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana, and later joined KHSK-TV in 1987. In 2002, Watts left his position as a television weatherman to devote time to his private business, ITWorks. He returned to work part-time at KHSL in 2004, and has also been the chief weatherman for KPAY-AM since 2002.

Watts admits he is not a degreed climate scientist. He formerly held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval. This is not the same as being ”AMS Certified, The American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor’s or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology. The American Meteorological Society reserves its separate “AMS Certified” designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists. Desmog says that Watts has received funding from the Heartland Institute.

STANCE ON CLIMATE AND QUOTATIONS:    1.  While I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues, I consider myself ‘green’ in many ways.    2.   At one time, was I was very much embracing the whole concept that we had a real problem, we had to do something about it. Back in 1988, James Hansen actually was the impetus for that for me, in his presentation before Congress. But as I learned more and more about the issue, I discovered that maybe it’s not as bad as it’s made out to be. Some of it is hype. But there’s also some data that has not been explored, and there’s been some investigations that need to be done that haven’t been done. And so now I’m in the camp of we have some global warming, no doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors.     3.  I would call myself what some people describe as a ‘lukewarmer’ in that the CO2 effect that people have done thousands of studies on is in fact real. However, it is not a crisis. The reason it is not a crisis is because most people do not understand the logarithmic nature of the CO2 response in our atmosphere.     4.  The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts.    5.   In his post “Houston, we have a dumbass problem,” following a February 24 Oval Office meeting, and subsequent Washington Post article, where two of President Obama’s top climate advisers presented “sharply-contrasting images of California’s snowpack as a way to underscore how global warming is changing conditions on the ground in the United States.    6.  So tell me, oh geniuses, what will you show the President after the looming El Niño kicks in later this year, and California has a wetter than normal year during the winter of 2014/15 and the snow pack goes up to something like 146% of normal? What then? Blame that on global warming and call it another “Houston we have a problem” moment when we get flooding in California like in 1997/1998 after that big EL Niño changed the weather pattern in a single year to drench the state? The lack of snowpack in 2014 is all about ENSO and resulting jet stream patterns, something well known for years.      7.  How is it that the IPCC 95% certainty on one side of the graph is caused by man and the other is not?    8.   The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.     9.   Antarctic ice is above normal. And the global total amount of sea ice is above normal. So it’s not disappearing any time soon.     10.   I believe that our [man-made] contribution [to climate change] may be far less than has been postulated. Our measurement network has been compromised—not intentionally, but accidentally and through carelessness.  

WITH THANKS TO DESMOG BLOG FOR THIS IMPRESSIVE COLLECTION. [LINK]  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE VOLVO CHENGDU PLANT

Volvo Cars Chengdu car plant powered by 100 per cent renewable ...

Volvo Cars Chengdu car plant powered by 100 per cent renewable ...

First Polestar 1 electric cars rolling off the lines (video ...

Volvo

 

NEWS STORIES ABOUT THE VOLVO CHENGDU PLANT ON JUNE 30, 2020

  1. VOLVO PRESS RELEASE: The 100 per cent renewable electricity mix in Chengdu is the result of a newly signed supply contract and will reduce the plant’s CO2 emissions by over 11,000 tonnes per year. It is the latest concrete step towards Volvo Cars’ ambition to have climate neutral manufacturing by 2025, part of a wider climate plan that aims to reduce the overall carbon footprint per car by 40 per cent between 2018 and 2025. By 2040, Volvo Cars aims to be a climate neutral company. The new electricity contract is also in line with broader ambitions in China to reduce carbon emissions from industry and reduce the carbon footprint resulting from energy generation. Until recently, the Chengdu plant already sourced 70 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources. The new contract addresses the last 30 per cent. Under the new contract, around 65 per cent of the electricity supply comes from hydropower, while the remainder comes from solar power, wind power and other renewable sources. “Our ambition is to reduce our carbon footprint through concrete, tangible actions,” said Javier Varela, head of industrial operations and quality. “Securing a fully renewable electricity supply for our largest plant in China is a significant milestone and underlines our commitment to taking concrete, meaningful action.” Volvo Cars is constantly working to reduce the carbon footprint of its manufacturing network and has reached a number of milestones in recent years. All its European plants have had a climate neutral electricity supply since 2008, while the engine plant in Skövde, Sweden was the first in the company’s network to become completely climate neutral in 2018. At the Ghent plant in Belgium, Volvo Cars installed 15,000 solar panels in 2018, the first large-scale introduction of solar energy in its global manufacturing network. These and other measures are part of the climate plan Volvo Cars launched late last year, one of the most ambitious in the automotive industry. The centrepiece of the plan is Volvo Cars’ ambition to generate 50 per cent of global sales from fully electric cars by 2025, with the rest hybrids. Yet the plan goes beyond addressing tailpipe emissions through all-out electrification and also seeks to tackle carbon emissions in the company’s wider operations, its supply chain and through recycling and reuse of materials The 100 per cent renewable electricity mix in Chengdu is the result of a newly signed supply contract and will reduce the plant’s CO2 emissions by over 11,000 tonnes per year. It is the latest concrete step towards Volvo Cars’ ambition to have climate neutral manufacturing by 2025, part of a wider climate plan that aims to reduce the overall carbon footprint per car by 40 per cent between 2018 and 2025. By 2040, Volvo Cars aims to be a climate neutral company. The new electricity contract is also in line with broader ambitions in China to reduce carbon emissions from industry and reduce the carbon footprint resulting from energy generation. Until recently, the Chengdu plant already sourced 70 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources. The new contract addresses the last 30 per cent. Under the new contract, around 65 per cent of the electricity supply comes from hydropower, while the remainder comes from solar power, wind power and other renewable sources. “Our ambition is to reduce our carbon footprint through concrete, tangible actions,” said Javier Varela, head of industrial operations and quality. “Securing a fully renewable electricity supply for our largest plant in China is a significant milestone and underlines our commitment to taking concrete, meaningful action.” Volvo Cars is constantly working to reduce the carbon footprint of its manufacturing network and has reached a number of milestones in recent years. All its European plants have had a climate neutral electricity supply since 2008, while the engine plant in Skövde, Sweden was the first in the company’s network to become completely climate neutral in 2018. At the Ghent plant in Belgium, Volvo Cars installed 15,000 solar panels in 2018, the first large-scale introduction of solar energy in its global manufacturing network. These and other measures are part of the climate plan Volvo Cars launched late last year, one of the most ambitious in the automotive industry. The centrepiece of the plan is Volvo Cars’ ambition to generate 50 per cent of global sales from fully electric cars by 2025, with the rest hybrids. Yet the plan goes beyond addressing tailpipe emissions through all-out electrification and also seeks to tackle carbon emissions in the company’s wider operations, its supply chain and through recycling and reuse of materials The 100 per cent renewable electricity mix in Chengdu is the result of a newly signed supply contract and will reduce the plant’s CO2 emissions by over 11,000 tonnes per year. It is the latest concrete step towards Volvo Cars’ ambition to have climate neutral manufacturing by 2025, part of a wider climate plan that aims to reduce the overall carbon footprint per car by 40 per cent between 2018 and 2025. By 2040, Volvo Cars aims to be a climate neutral company. The new electricity contract is also in line with broader ambitions in China to reduce carbon emissions from industry and reduce the carbon footprint resulting from energy generation. Until recently, the Chengdu plant already sourced 70 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources. The new contract addresses the last 30 per cent. Under the new contract, around 65 per cent of the electricity supply comes from hydropower, while the remainder comes from solar power, wind power and other renewable sources. “Our ambition is to reduce our carbon footprint through concrete, tangible actions,” said Javier Varela, head of industrial operations and quality. “Securing a fully renewable electricity supply for our largest plant in China is a significant milestone and underlines our commitment to taking concrete, meaningful action.” Volvo Cars is constantly working to reduce the carbon footprint of its manufacturing network and has reached a number of milestones in recent years. All its European plants have had a climate neutral electricity supply since 2008, while the engine plant in Skövde, Sweden was the first in the company’s network to become completely climate neutral in 2018. At the Ghent plant in Belgium, Volvo Cars installed 15,000 solar panels in 2018, the first large-scale introduction of solar energy in its global manufacturing network. These and other measures are part of the climate plan Volvo Cars launched late last year, one of the most ambitious in the automotive industry. The centrepiece of the plan is Volvo Cars’ ambition to generate 50 per cent of global sales from fully electric cars by 2025, with the rest hybrids. Yet the plan goes beyond addressing tailpipe emissions through all-out electrification and also seeks to tackle carbon emissions in the company’s wider operations, its supply chain and through recycling and reuse of materials. The 100 per cent renewable electricity mix in Chengdu is the result of a newly signed supply contract and will reduce the plant’s CO2 emissions by over 11,000 tonnes per year. It is the latest concrete step towards Volvo Cars’ ambition to have climate neutral manufacturing by 2025, part of a wider climate plan that aims to reduce the overall carbon footprint per car by 40 per cent between 2018 and 2025. By 2040, Volvo Cars aims to be a climate neutral company. The new electricity contract is also in line with broader ambitions in China to reduce carbon emissions from industry and reduce the carbon footprint resulting from energy generation. Until recently, the Chengdu plant already sourced 70 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources. The new contract addresses the last 30 per cent. Under the new contract, around 65 per cent of the electricity supply comes from hydropower, while the remainder comes from solar power, wind power and other renewable sources. “Our ambition is to reduce our carbon footprint through concrete, tangible actions,” said Javier Varela, head of industrial operations and quality. “Securing a fully renewable electricity supply for our largest plant in China is a significant milestone and underlines our commitment to taking concrete, meaningful action.” Volvo Cars is constantly working to reduce the carbon footprint of its manufacturing network and has reached a number of milestones in recent years. All its European plants have had a climate neutral electricity supply since 2008, while the engine plant in Skövde, Sweden was the first in the company’s network to become completely climate neutral in 2018. At the Ghent plant in Belgium, Volvo Cars installed 15,000 solar panels in 2018, the first large-scale introduction of solar energy in its global manufacturing network. These and other measures are part of the climate plan Volvo Cars launched late last year, one of the most ambitious in the automotive industry. The centrepiece of the plan is Volvo Cars’ ambition to generate 50 per cent of global sales from fully electric cars by 2025, with the rest hybrids. Yet the plan goes beyond addressing tailpipe emissions through all-out electrification and also seeks to tackle carbon emissions in the company’s wider operations, its supply chain and through recycling and reuse of materials.
  2. NEWS STORY #1: Chengdu with 100% renewable power. This change is estimated to reduce the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions by more than 11,000 tonnes per year. STORY: The Volvo Cars manufacturing plant in Chengdu, China is now powered by 100% renewable electricity, taking the company’s global renewable electricity mix in its manufacturing network to 80%. This change is estimated to reduce the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions by more than 11,000 tonnes per year. The company’s largest plant in China will be powered with 65% hydropower, while the remainder will come from solar, wind and other renewable sources. Javier Varela, Head of Industrial Operations and Quality, said: “Securing a fully renewable electricity supply for our largest plant in China is a significant milestone and underlines our commitment to taking concrete, meaningful action.” Volvo Cars has an ambition to reach climate-neutral manufacturing by 2025. [LINK]
  3. NEWS STORY#2: Volvo Factory In China Runs On 100% Renewable Energy at Chengdu Factory. STORY: Volvo Cars continues its march towards being a carbon-neutral manufacturing company by 2025 last week, when it announced that its vehicle assembly plant in Chengdu, China would make the switch to 100% renewable energy. The deal is part of a new energy supply contract that will rely heavily on hydroelectric and solar power cut the factory’s carbon emissions by more than 11,000 tons, annually. “Our ambition is to reduce our carbon footprint through concrete, tangible actions,” explains Javier Varela, head of industrial operations at Volvo. “Securing a fully renewable electricity supply for our largest plant in China is a significant milestone and underlines our commitment to taking concrete, meaningful action.” More than a simple PR-push, this move is just the latest for Volvo, following the plan to switch to hydrogen-fueled trucking between factories, rail-based vehicle transport to shipping ports, and a company-wide ban on single-use plastics — all of which follow in the footsteps of its pledge to introduce only electrified vehicles after 2019. [LINK[ .
  4. NEWS STORY #3: Volvo plant in Chengdu now runs entirely on renewable energy. STORY: Volvo Cars’ factory in Chengdu – the largest factory in China from the Swedish manufacturer – now runs entirely on renewable energy. This has increased the share of renewable energy use in the company’s global production network to 80 percent. The move to 100 percent renewable energy in Chengdu has been accomplished through the conclusion of a new energy contract, which will reduce the plant’s CO 2 emissions by more than 11,000 tons per year. It is the most recent step towards realizing Volvo’s ambition to be completely climate-neutral by 2025 in terms of production.
  5. NEWS STORY #4: Volvo Cars’ largest plant in China is now completely powered by renewable electricity. STORY: Till recently, Volvo Cars plant in Chendu, China sourced about 70 per cent of its electricity supply from renewable sources.Volvo Cars’ largest plant in China is now completely powered by renewable electricity. Volvo Cars’ largest plant in China is now completely powered by renewable electricity Volvo Cars recently announced that its manufacturing facility in Chengdu, China is now completely powered by 100 per cent renewable electricity. The plant, which is the Swedish automaker’s biggest facility in China, sourced 70 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources until recently. However, the company recently signed a supply contract wherein it will now source all of its electricity from renewable sources. Volvo Cars noted that this move will cut down the Chengdu plant’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by more than 11,000 tonnes every year. Oh and another interesting thing about this news is that with the Volvo Chengdu plant using 100 per cent renewable electricity, the company’s global renewable electricity mix in its manufacturing network has now increased to 80 per cent. Javier Varela, head of industrial operations and quality, Volvo Car Group, said, “Our ambition is to reduce our carbon footprint through concrete, tangible actions. Securing a fully renewable electricity supply for our largest plant in China is a significant milestone and underlines our commitment to taking concrete, meaningful action.” The company explained that under the purview of the new contract, roughly 65 per cent of the Chengdu plant’s electricity supply is sourced from hydropower, while the remainder comes from solar power, wind power, and other renewable sources. Volvo Cars has previously shared its plan to have climate neutral manufacturing by 2025, which, in turn, is a part of its overall goal to cut down the overall carbon footprint per car by 40 per cent between 2018 and 2025. And by 2040, the carmaker aims to be a completely climate neutral company. And the Chengdu plant now using only 100 per cent renewable energy is, of course, a huge step towards that. As a matter of fact, Volvo has achieved a variety of milestones in this regard in recent years; including the fact that all its manufacturing facilities in Europe have had a climate neutral electricity supply since 2008. It may also be interesting to note that Volvo Cars’ engine plant in Skövde, Sweden was the first in the company’s network to become completely climate neutral — that was done in 2018.

 

 

CRITICAL COMMENTARY

  1. It is claimed that the merit of the hydroelectric power renewable energy innovation at the Volvo Chengdu factory is that it has reduced that plant’s fossil fuel emissions by 11,000 tons of CO2 per year. Since climate science normally quotes carbon emissions in carbon equivalent and not carbon dioxide, we convert CO2 to carbon as 11,000*12/44 = 3,000 tons of carbon per year of emissions saved by the use of hydroelectric power.
  2. The Volvo Chengdu plant makes 120,000 cars per year so on a per car basis the emissions saved is 11,000/120,000 = 0.091666 tons per year of emissions saved for each car made at Chengdu.
  3. The total global car production is estimated to be 73 million. Thus, globally, if all car manufacturing  around the world were upgraded to the Volvo hydroelectric process, the global savings on emissions would be 73 million times 0.091666 or 1825000 tons per year. Assuming that these measurements are in metric tons that translates to 0.001825 gigatons per year saved by the conversion of all car manufacturing globally to the Volvo hydroelectric power process.
  4. Currently, global fossil fuel emissions are estimated to be 10.13 gigatons per year (2018). The uncertainty in this estimate is plus or minus 1.5% that rounds out to plus or minus 0.152 gigatons per year.
  5. Here we note that the global savings on fossil fuel emissions of the Volvo hydroelectric power innovation at Chengdu of 0.001825 gigatons per year is less than the uncertainty in global fossil fuel emissions. Therefore, the net climate action benefit of the Volvo hydroelectric innovation is unlikely to be of any significance as a form of climate action.
  6. We conclude that the only real value of an insignificant global reduction of 0.001825 gigatons of carbon emissions {if all car manufacturing in the world converted to the Volvo hydroelectric innovation} is that the Volvo innovation can be sold as a high profile climate action initiative taken by an automobile manufacturer. This innovation and its marketing as a climate action initiative has value in the marketing of the Volvo name and its products as something that puts an automobile manufacturer on the right side of the climate movement doing their part with renewable innovations to save the planet. However, it has no interpretation in terms of the global emission equation of climate action because the relative amount of CO2 involved is insignificant and well within the error margin of global emissions. 

 

verk-1

EXXON-4

Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C.: The Complete Series (DVD) - Walmart.com ...

 

 

 

 

noah

KERRY

otto

Don't let confirmation bias narrow your perspective

 

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE DIFFENBAUGH, SINGH, AND SWAIN 2017 PAPER [LINK]  THAT IS OFTEN CITED AS THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE ATTRIBUTION OF EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS TO AGW CLIMATE CHANGE.

CITATION: Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events. Diffenbaugh, Singh, & Swain ET AL, PNAS April 24, 2017, Edited by Kerry A. Emanuel. Received for review October 31, 2016. 

 

 

PART-1: WHAT THE PAPER SAYS 

  1. ABSTRACT: Efforts to understand the influence of historical global warming on individual extreme climate events have increased over the past decade. However, despite substantial progress, events that are unprecedented in the local observational record remain a persistent challenge. Leveraging observations and a large climate model ensemble, we quantify uncertainty in the influence of global warming on the severity and probability of the historically hottest month, hottest day, driest year, and wettest 5-d period for different areas of the globe. We find that historical warming has increased the severity and probability of the hottest month and hottest day of the year at >80% of the available observational area. Our framework also suggests that the historical climate forcing has increased the probability of the driest year and wettest 5-d period at 57% and 41% of the observed area, respectively, although we note important caveats. For the most protracted hot and dry events, the strongest and most widespread contributions of anthropogenic climate forcing occur in the tropics, including increases in probability of at least a factor of 4 for the hottest month and at least a factor of 2 for the driest year. We also demonstrate the ability of our framework to systematically evaluate the role of dynamic and thermodynamic factors such as atmospheric circulation patterns and atmospheric water vapor, and find extremely high statistical confidence that anthropogenic forcing increased the probability of record-low Arctic sea ice extent. 
  2. SUMMARY OF EVENT ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS: DATA AND RESULTS: bandicam 2020-07-12 07-19-53-998
  3. THE UNCERTAINTY PROBLEM:  These data contain large sampling errors because we have data for only a few decades and that leaves us with large uncertainties in the estimation of event probability. How does event attribution analysis get around this uncertainty problem? Here the authors of {Diffenbaugh Singh & Swain 2017} write that they were able to overcome their uncertainty problem with the methodology  used in {Singh & Diffenbaugh 2013} and  {Swain & Diffenbaugh 2014}. But as we see in the citations, they are actually citing themselves.
  4. {Singh & Diffenbaugh 2013} studied severe precipitation in Northern India in June 2013 and found “Our statistical analysis, combined with our diagnosis of the atmospheric environment, demonstrates that the extreme June 2013 total precipitation in northern India was at a century-scale event. Precise quantification of the likelihood of the event in the current and preindustrial climates is limited by the relatively short observational record.
  5. {Swain & Diffenbaugh 2014} studied the 2013-2014 drought in California and found “The 2013/14 California drought was an exceptional climate event. A highly persistent large-scale meteorological pattern over the northeastern Pacific led to observationally unprecedented geopotential height and precipitation anomalies over a broad region. The very strong ridging and highly amplified meridional flow near the West Coast of North America in 2013/14 was structurally similar to but spatially and temporally more extensive than atmospheric configurations that have been previously linked to extreme dryness in California. We find that extreme geopotential height values (i.e. warmer air} in this region occur more frequently in the present climate than in the absence of human emissions {Note-1:  Geopotential height represents the height of the pressure surface. Cold air is more dense than warm air and that causes pressure surfaces to be lower in colder air masses and higher in warmer air masses}.   {Note-2: “the absence of human emissions” is a reference to the pre-industrial. The choice of language emphasizes a climate science bias and not evidence of fossil fuel emissions as the cause of the drought}. The human and environmental impacts of the 2013/14 California drought were amplified by the timing of the event. The event began in January 2013, abruptly truncating what had initially appeared to be a wet rainy season following very heavy precipitation during November–December 2012. By persisting through January 2014, the event also effectively delayed the start of the subsequent rainy season by at least four months. The rapid onset and persistent high intensity of drought conditions presented unique challenges for decision makers tasked with making choices about the allocation of water to urban, agricultural, and environmental interests. Together, the complexity and severity of the observed drought impacts, coupled with our finding that global warming has increased the probability of extreme North Pacific geopotential heights similar to those associated with the 2013/14 drought, suggest that understanding the link between climate change and persistent North Pacific ridging events will be crucial in characterizing the future risk of severe drought in California.
  6. The authors cite these two of their earlier works as references that validate their methodology described as “we evaluate the climate model’s simulation of interannual variability in each climate indicator. Previous event attribution studies have made this evaluation using the Kolmogorov−Smirnov test (22, 34, 38). However, we find that the Anderson−Darling test, which gives more weight to the tails of the distribution, produces a more restrictive comparison with observations for the four extreme climate variables. We first correct the mean of the Pre-Industrial Control Simulation to be equal to the mean of the detrended observations. We then use the A-D test to quantify the agreement between the mean-corrected Pre-Industrial Simulation and the detrended observations. We reject the climate model if the A-D test yields a P value less than 0.05, as this suggests that the model output does not come from the same statistical population as the observations.
  7. The authors conclude as follows:  CONCLUSION:  We apply four event attribution metrics to a suite of climate variables, including globally gridded temperature and precipitation observations. Our framework is designed to proceed if there is statistical confidence in the fit between the parametric distribution and the observations, if the parametric fit produces a finite solution across the uncertainty distribution, and if the climate model is able to accurately simulate the observed distribution of the variable. Our systematic analysis of global temperature and precipitation data show that these criteria are often met, but also that large areas of the globe can violate these criteria. The failure of events to meet these criteria arises from at least three conditions. First, unprecedented events result from a complex combination of interacting physical causes. Second, given the rarity of the event, the limitations of the observed record, and the nonstationarity of the climate system, quantifying the probability in the current climate can be highly uncertain. Third, given the complexity of the physical causes, climate models may not accurately simulate the underlying physical processes, or their probability of occurrence. Our results therefore highlight at least five important priorities for “single event attribution”: They are as follows:  (1) understanding the contributions of different physical causes to a particular event.  (2) using formal hypothesis testing to quantify the uncertainty in the probability of both the event and the contributing physical causes, (3) ensuring accurate assessment of the fidelity of the statistical and physical models to the observational data, (4)  distinguishing changes in the probability of extremes from changes in the mean, and (5)  systematically differentiating “absence of evidence” of a causal link from “evidence of absence.

 

 

CRITICAL COMMENTARY

  1. As noted in a related post [LINK]  Event Attribution analysis is best understood in the context of its origins. It has long been claimed by climate science that basic principles of climate science imply that fossil fuel driven AGW (anthropogenic global warming and climate change) will increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, heat waves, extreme cold, droughts, floods, landslides, and even forest fires. The role of such attribution in the climate action program of the UN is that the harmful effects of extreme weather events provide a scientific justification for urgent and costly climate action in the form of reductions in fossil fuel emissions. This action against fossil fuels is being promoted by climate science and the United Nations as a way of attenuating the warming trend. The justification of costly climate action is that the social and economic cost of adaptation later is greater than the cost of mitigation now.
  2. It is this assumed catastrophic nature of AGW that provides the rationale for the UNFCCC policy that requires Annex I countries to reduce emissions by changing their energy infrastructure from fossil fuels to renewables. Yet, this line of reasoning is weakened by a frustrating inability of climate science to produce empirical evidence that relates extreme weather disasters to emissions. Please see   Sheffield, 2008, Bouwer, 2011, Munshi, 2016, NCEI, 2015, and Woollings, 2014 in the citations posted separately at this link:  [LINK]
  3. Of particular note in this regard is that claims made by the IPCC in 2007 with regard to the effect of AGW on the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones, droughts, and floods have been all but retracted in their very next Assessment Report in 2014 (IPCCAR5, 2014). Thus, climate scientists, though convinced of the causal connection between AGW and extreme weather events, are nevertheless unable to provide acceptable empirical evidence to support what to them is obvious and “unequivocal” but for which climate science has neither empirical evidence nor a methodology that could serve as the tool for presenting such evidence  (Curry, 2011) (Zwiers, 2013) (Munshi, 2016) (Frame, 2011) (Hulme, 2014). 
  4. A break came for climate science in 2013 when the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) was signed [LINK] . This mechanism has to do with the complex classification of nation states in the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC in which poor developing nations of the Global South are classified as (Non-Annex countries) with no climate action obligations. Rich developed Western countries of the Global North (Annex-1 countries) are assigned the entire burden of global emission reduction along with the additional burden of providing financial compensation to the non-Annex countries of the Global South for extreme weather impacts of climate change. When the Annex-1 providers of climate impact compensation funds requested evidence to separate extreme weather events that are natural from those caused AGW climate change, the United Nations organized the meeting in Warsaw in 2013 to discuss and resolve this issue.
  5. The Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) of 2013 has redefined climate change adaptation funding as a form of compensation for “loss and damage” suffered by nonAnnex countries because of sea level rise or extreme weather events caused by fossil fuel emissions which are thought to be mostly a product of Annex-1 countries. Accordingly, the WIM requires that loss and damage suffered by the nonAnnex countries for which compensation is sought from climate adaptation funds must be attributable to fossil fuel emissions. A probabilistic methodology was devised to address the need for attribution in the WIM and It has gained widespread acceptance in both technical and policy circles as a tool for the allocation of limited climate adaptation funds among competing needs of the non-Annex countries.
  6. The probabilistic event attribution methodology (PEA) uses a large number of climate model experiments with multiple models and a multiplicity of initial conditions. A large sample size is used because extreme weather events are rare and their probability small by definition. The probability of an observed extreme weather event with anthropogenic emissions and the probability without anthropogenic emissions are derived from climate model experiments as P1 and P0. If the probability with emissions (P1) exceeds the probability without emissions (P0), the results are interpreted to indicate that emissions played a role in the occurrence of the event in question. Otherwise the event is assumed to be a product of natural variation alone. The probability that fossil fuel emissions played a role in the extreme weather event is represented as P = (P1-P0)/P0.
  7. A contentious issue in PEA analysis is that of uncertainty in the values of P0 and P1 and in the model results themselves. Policy analysts fear that the large uncertainties of climate models (Oreskes, 1994) (Frame, 2011) (Curry, 2011) and shortcomings of the PEA methodology (Zwiers, 2013) (Hulme, 2011) provide sufficient reason to question the reliability of PEA to serve its intended function as a criterion for access to climate adaptation funds (Hulme, 2011). Mike Hulme and others argue that much greater statistical confidence in the PEA test is needed to justify denial of adaptation funding for loss and damage from weather extremes that do not pass the PEA test.
  8. The greater concern with respect to the PEA methodology, and one that is the subject of this post, is the desperate urgency in climate science to extend the interpretation of PEA results beyond their intended function of fund allocation and into the realm of empirical evidence. The beginnings of this extension go back to the work of climate scientist Friederike Otto (Oxford) shown in the third photograph at the top of this page. The first two photographs are of Noah Diffenbaugh (Stanford), the lead author of the Event Attribution paper presented here and co-author Kerry Emanuel (MIT), a leading figure in the attribution of rising hurricane intensity and destructiveness to AGW climate change. His work is described in a related post [LINK] .
  9. For the purpose of this extension and the adoption of PEA as a climate science procedure for the attribution of extreme weather events to AGW climate change, the WIM procedure was renamed from PEA to Event Attribution Analysis and then elevated by Scientific American to Event Attribution Science in an article extolling the virtues of this method. Yet, as we argue in a related post [LINK] , the methodology suffers from confirmation bias and the so called Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. The selection of the event after the fact provides a selection bias and as we see in the three papers discussed above, if the statistics are not initially satisfactory, the data can be tortured until something is retrieved that rationalizes the attribution. The language of the interpretation of results implies a direct attribution to fossil fuel emissions instead of to temperature. No effort is made to compare the event to recent post AGW events at similar and lower temperatures to establish the relationship between temperature and the severity of the weather event. Also no data or rationale is provided for events at the same or later time that may have been of a lesser intensity.
  10. Since global warming is a theory about long term trends in global mean temperature and events are localized in time and space, the event attribution should include a comparison with regions that have warmed at different rates. For example, here the authors studied an event in the tropics. In the 40-year period 1979-2019, land surfaces in the tropics have warmed 0.64C compared with 0.76C  for Australia, and 0.8C for the Northern Hemisphere north of the Tropics. It should  be shown that the effect of warming on wetness in these regions is consistent with these different warming rates.
  11. The finding of the 2017 paper is: We find that historical warming has increased the severity and probability of the hottest month and hottest day of the year at >80% of the available observational area. Our framework also suggests that the historical climate forcing has increased the probability of the driest year and wettest 5-d period at 57% and 41% of the observed area, respectively, although we note important caveats. For the most protracted hot and dry events, the strongest and most widespread contributions of anthropogenic climate forcing occur in the tropics, including increases in probability of at least a factor of 4 for the hottest month and at least a factor of 2 for the driest year.
  12. In the finding both the time span to be studied and the percent of the observed area are different but these differences are not explained or considered in there interpretation.
  13. IN CONCLUSION, WE FIND THE ATTRIBUTION OF EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS TO AGW GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT CONSTRAINED IN ANY WAY SO THAT WHATEVER DIFFERENCES CAN BE FOUND ARE ARBITRARILY ATTRIBUTED TO WARMING. THE TIME SCALE FOR THE STUDY AND THE EXTENT OF THE OBSERVED AREA AFFECTED ARE NOT PRE-SPECIFIED BUT REMAIN FLUID CONSTRAINED ONLY BY THE CONFIRMATION BIAS OF THE RESEARCHER. AS IN THE PRIOR WORK [LINK]  , WE FIND THAT EVENT ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF WARMING ON EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS IS NOT CREDIBLE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CONSTRAINTS IN THE METHODOLOGY OR IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA SUCH THAT THE CONFIRMATION BIAS OF THE RESEARCHER GUIDES THE SELECTION OF THE DATA AND THEIR INTERPRETATION
  14. THE METHODOLOGY BOILS DOWN TO THIS: FIND AN EXTREME WEATHER EVENT SOMEWHERE. 2. FIND A WAY TO RELATE IT TO AGW. UNBIASED OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY BEGINS WITH THE RESEARCH QUESTION; BUT CONFIRMATION BIASED EVENT ATTRIBUTION RESEARCH BEGINS WITH THE DATA.
  15. IN A RELATED WORK WE SHOW A SIMILAR CONFIRMATION BIAS / CIRCULAR REASONING  IN A STUDY by KERRY EMANUEL ABOUT THE EFFECT OF GLOBAL WARMING ON THE “DESTRUCTIVENESS OF HURRICANES”: [LINK] , A FURTHER DEMONSTRATION OF CIRCULAR REASONING AND CONFIRMATION BIAS IN CLIMATE SCIENCE.  MORE ON HURRICANES [LINK] .

Classic Hollywood: Three Stooges on big screen at Alex Theatre ...

verk-1

guterres

RACISM AND CLIMATE CHANGE | Thongchai Thailand

Amazon.com: Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C. - The Complete Series: Jim Nabors ...

[RELATED POST ON CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS]

 

THIS POST IS A STUDY OF THE CLAIM THAT AN IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING IS A DECLINE IN GDP [LINK]. HERE WE PRESENT HISTORICAL DATA FOR THE SAME HYPOTHESIS IN THE STUDY PERIOD 1850 TO 2016 AND PRESENT THE OBSERVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GLOBAL WARMING AND GDP. 

Reserve Bank warns of 25% GDP loss by 2100 unless action taken on climate change

 

 

PART-1: THE HISTORICAL DATA

 

FIGURE 1: GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE 1850-20160001TEMP

 

 FIGURE 2: GLOBAL GDP 1850-20160001GL1

 

FIGURE 3: PER CAPITA GDP IN THE UK 1850-20160001UK1

FIGURE 4: GLOBAL GDP AND GLOBAL WARMING0001GL2

 

FIGURE 5: UK PER CAPITA GDP AND GLOBAL WARMING0001UK2

 

 

PART-2: EVALUATION OF THE CLAIM THAT GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES GDP LOSS

THE DATA PRESENTED ABOVE DO NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES GDP TO DECLINE. WHAT WE SEE INSTEAD IS A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO VARIABLES. IF THE RESERVE  BANK SUGGESTS THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GLOBAL WARMING AND GDP IS A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH WARMING IS THE AGENT OF CAUSATION AND GDP IS THE EFFECT, THEN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA PRESENTED IS THAT GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES GDP TO RISE.

IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED THAT THE CLIMATE SCIENCE INTERPRETATION OF THIS RELATIONSHIP IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. WHAT CLIMATE SCIENCE SAYS IS THAT GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT CAUSE GDP BUT GDP CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING BY WAY OF THE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS OF GDP CREATION. THIS CLIMATE SCIENCE INTERPRETATION IMPLIES THAT IT IS NOT CLIMATE CHANGE BUT CLIMATE ACTION THAT REDUCES GDP. IN EITHER CASE, THE RESERVE BANK PROPOSITION IS FALSIFIED. 

THE ODDITY THAT ALL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS TO FEAR ARE IN THE FUTURE AND NEVER IN THE PAST IMPLIES AN ABSENCE OF EMPIRICAL SUPPORT FOR THESE FEARS. THEREFORE THESE FEARS ARE THE CREATION OF CLIMATE ACTIVISM, NOT CLIMATE SCIENCE [LINK] .

 

 

LINKS TO THE EXXON KNEW MOVEMENT: [INSIDE-CLIMATE-NEWS] [THE GUARDIAN] [NAOMI ORESKES]   

 

 

 

THE CASE AGAINST EXXON

  1. NAOMI ORESKESBut Exxon was sending a different message, even though its own evidence contradicted its public claim that the science was highly uncertain and no one really knew whether the climate was changing or, if it was changing, what was causing it … Journalists and scientists have identified more than 30 different organizations funded by the company that have worked to undermine the scientific message and prevent policy action to control greenhouse gas emissions.
  2. THE GUARDIAN: EXXON was at the forefront of climate research, warning of the dangers posed by human-caused global warming from the late-1970s to the late-1980s. Exxon has responded to the ICN allegations by pointing out that over the past three decades, the company’s scientists have continued to publish peer-reviewed climate research. Our scientists have contributed climate research and related policy analysis to more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications – all out in the open. They’ve participated in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since its inception – in 1988 – and were involved in the National Academy of Sciences review of the third U.S. National Climate Assessment Report.Finally, I’ll note that we have long – and publicly – supported a revenue-neutral carbon tax as the most effective, transparent, and efficient way for governments to send a signal to consumers and the economy to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels. While the ICN investigation focused on Exxon’s internal reports, Exxon’s spokesman pointed to the peer-reviewed scientific research published by the company’s scientists between 1983 and 2014 – 53 papers in all. Exxon scientists’ 100% global warming consensus. A review of research papers published by Exxon scientists showed that all 53 of the papers are high-quality scientific research. Most of them implicitly or explicitly endorsed the expert consensus on human-caused global warming; none minimized or rejected it. This means that there is a 100% consensus on human-caused global warming among Exxon’s peer-reviewed climate science research – even higher than the 97% consensus in the rest of the peer-reviewed literature. Of the 53 papers, 45 were co-authored by Haroon Kheshgi. I spoke to several climate scientists who worked with him and all agree, Kheshgi is a top-notch climate scientist, for example having constructively contributed to the first IPCC reports that identified a human influence on global warming. Katharine Hayhoe did a summer internship with Kheshgi at one of Exxon’s facilities as part of her masters’ thesis research, and subsequently co-authored a number of papers with him. According to Hayhoe, “Haroon himself is an outstanding scientist – careful, detailed, methodical, and committed to doing good science, just as we all are. In my experience with Exxon and with Haroon, I never met a scientist who expressed any opinions counter to those prevalent in the academic community”. Much of Exxon’s early research in the 1980s dealt with climate modeling, for example projecting that the planet’s surface temperatures would warm 3–6°C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. Their research has often discussed the dangers associated with this degree of global warming, and many studies published by Exxon scientists investigated the possibility of mitigating climate change by sequestering carbon in the deep ocean. The peer-reviewed research published by Exxon’s climate scientists was entirely in line with the expert consensus that humans are causing potentially dangerous global warming, and that we need to explore ways to mitigate the associated risks. Yet, Exxon funded climate denial misinformation campaign. While Exxon’s own scientists and research were 100% aligned with the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, the company simultaneously funded a campaign to manufacture doubt about that scientific consensus. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science found that groups with funding from corporations like Exxon have been particularly effective at polarizing and misinforming the public on climate change. Since 1998, Exxon has given over $31 million to organizations and individuals blocking solutions to climate change and spreading misinformation to the public. Exxon’s funding of the climate misinformation campaign may even have extended further, as a former company executive told the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS): “The company paid out as much as $10 million annually on what insiders called “black ops” from 1998 through 2005. After pledging to stop funding these climate denial groups in 2007, Exxon continued to give more than $2.3 million to the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) and to members of Congress who denied the expert climate consensus and acted to obstruct climate policies. Exxon also funded outside scientists who published some of the 2–3% of shoddy research that disputed the global warming consensus. For example, Exxon and other fossil fuel companies together gave contrarian scientist Willie Soon over $1 million in funding.In short, Exxon has two faces. Its own scientists have been publishing top-notch research on the dangers of human-caused global warming for 35 years, but for the past several decades, the company simultaneously engaged in a multi-pronged campaign to cast doubt on the expert consensus of which its own scientists were part. Exxon funded outside scientists to publish shoddy research contradicting that of its own scientists, funded think tanks and other organizations to use that research to manufacture doubt about the consensus, and donated money to politicians and Alec to obstruct efforts to pass critically important climate legislation. There is a sharp contrast between what Exxon knew and what Exxon did. As Bill McKibben imagined, just think of how the world would be different if Exxon had told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on climate change. Exxon is under investigation. While Exxon has supported climate science and policy in public, the company has engaged in a shadowy misinformation campaign behind the scenes. As a result, there have been increasing calls by climate scientists for a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) investigation into Exxon’s behavior in a petition with 350,000 signatures. Senators Whitehouse (D-RI), Blumenthal (D-CT), Warren (D-MA), and Markey (D-MA) have also sent Exxon an inquiry letter asking whether it has funded Donors Trust/Donors Capital Fund, which funnels money to climate denial organizations while concealing the identity of its donors. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has also subpoenaed Exxon for documents spanning four decades of research findings and communications about climate change. House Democrats have announced plans for a broader probe into the fossil fuel industry to determine whether other companies behaved in the same manner as Exxon, funding a denial misinformation campaign after knowing the causes and risks associated with climate change. It appears that the only difference between the behavior of Exxon and the tobacco industry is that cigarette companies didn’t publish their research linking smoking and adverse health effects. Exxon’s scientists have published research in scientific journals on the human causes and dangers of global warming. However, in both cases, the industries funded an extensive multi-pronged campaign to misinform the public about the expert scientific consensus and the dangers associated with their products. It remains to be seen whether the investigations into the actions of Exxon and the rest of the fossil fuel industry will yield the same results as the investigations into the tobacco industry racketeering.
  3. INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS: Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate Models. The company chairman would later mock climate models as unreliable while he campaigned to stop global action to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Exxon Believed Deep Dive Into Climate Research Would Protect Its Business. Outfitting its biggest supertanker to measure the ocean’s absorption of carbon dioxide was a crown jewel in Exxon’s research program. Exxon’s Business Ambition Collided with Climate Change. Throughout the 1980s, the company struggled to solve the carbon problem of one of the biggest gas fields in the world out of concern for climate impacts. In the 1980s, Exxon lobbied to replace scarce oil with synthetic fossil fuels, but it glossed over the high carbon footprint associated with synfuels. Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty Collaborating with the Bush-Cheney White House, Exxon turned ordinary scientific uncertainties into weapons of mass confusion.Exxon Made Deep Cuts in Climate Research Budget in the 1980s. The cuts ushered in a five-year hiatus in peer-reviewed publication by its scientists and the era when the company first embraced disinformation. More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago. Documents reveal Exxon’s early CO2 position, its global warming forecast from the 1980s, and its involvement with the issue at the highest echelons. Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too. Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and Shell.

 

 

CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON THE CASE AGAINST EXXON

  1. That “Exxon Knew” was an evil thing has more than one interpretation in the case against Exxon presented above. The first is the secrecy interpretation found in the allegations that emphasize how early Exxon had known. The year of this earliness is cited variously as the 1970s and the 1980s. Here the case against Exxon appears to be that they knew about the dangers of fossil fuels but did not divulge this secret so that they could continued to produce their destructive product. This line of reasoning is inconsistent with the climate change literature in which we find climate change papers published and in the public domain as early 1938 by Guy Callendar and in 1957 by Revelle followed by two mainline papers by high profile climate activist James Hansen in 1981 and 1988, and public domain publications of Exxon itself. Thus it does not appear that the anthropogenic global warming and climate change theory (AGW) was a secret. What’s more, Exxon’s climate research was not secretive but published in peer reviewed journals and in the public domain. Therefore, that Exxon had come upon secret information about the coming AGW catastrophe and then kept it a secret for profit’s sake, is not credible. Everything that Exxon knew was in the public domain and nothing that Exxon knew was a secret. RESPONSE:  That Exxon had indeed looked into that matter in depth and spent significant resources investigating the fossil fueled global warming issue means that their decision was an informed decision made in the open with all research findings made public. These details of Exxon’s research into AGW do not cast them as evil but as rational. 
  2. A second argument implied in the case against Exxon is that Exxon’s climate scientists knew about the link between fossil fuels and AGW and the catastrophic consequences if AGW runs its course in the absence of the climate action in the form of reducing and eventually eliminating the combustion of fossil fuels but Exxon managers did not heed their warming and continued to produce and market fossil fuels. In other words, Exxon managers hired climate experts to do the research and advise managers but the managers did not heed the warming Yet, this is exactly how business works. The managers are the decision makers accountable to shareholders. They hire experts to provide them with information they need to make their decision but in the end the managers make the decision. The important information here is that the managers DID hire experts to investigate this matter and then only after receiving their reports and findings did the managers do their job and make a decision on the basis of  those findings. There is nothing odd or suspicious or evil in this matter as reported in the documents cited above. 
  3. On January 11, 1964, Luther L. Terry, M.D., Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service, released the first report of the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health. On the basis of more than 7,000 articles relating to smoking and disease already available at that time in the biomedical literature, the Advisory Committee concluded that cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer and laryngeal cancer in men, a probable cause of lung cancer in women, and the most important cause of chronic bronchitis. The release of the report was the first in a series of steps, still being taken more than 40 years later, to diminish the impact of tobacco use on the health of the American people. For several days, the report furnished newspaper headlines across the country and lead stories on television newscasts. Later it was ranked among the top news stories of 1964. During the more than 40 years that have elapsed since that report, individual citizens, private organizations, public agencies, and elected officials have pursued the Advisory Committee’s call for “appropriate remedial action.” Early on, the U.S. Congress adopted the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 and the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969. These laws required a health warning on cigarette packages, banned cigarette advertising in the broadcasting media, and called for an annual report on the health consequences of smoking. In September 1965, the Public Health Service established a small unit called the National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health.  Through the years, the Clearinghouse and its successor organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health, have been responsible for 29 reports on the health consequences of smoking. In close cooperation with voluntary health organizations, the Public Health Service has supported successful state and community programs to reduce tobacco use, disseminated research findings related to tobacco use, ensured the continued public visibility of anti-smoking messages
    Within this evolving social milieu, the population has given up smoking in increasing numbers. Nearly half of all living adults who ever smoked have quit. The anti-smoking campaign is a major public health success with few parallels in the history of public health. It is being accomplished despite the addictive nature of tobacco and the powerful economic forces promoting its use. However, more than 45 million American adults still smoke, more than 8 million are living with a serious illness caused by smoking, and about 438,000 Americans die prematurely each year as a result of tobacco use. Efforts to implement proven interventions must be continued and expanded.  RESPONSE:  It has become standard practice for climate activists to insert the tobacco story into the Exxon knew allegations but the relevance of this argument is obscure with no rational argument from the accusers of its relevance to AGW climate change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explainer: how surface and satellite temperature records compare ...

UAH LOWER TROPOSPHERE TEMPERATURES 1979-2019

 

GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE 1979-2019 GIF

MEAN ANNUAL WARMING RATE = 1.3C/CENTURY

GLOBAL-GIFAUS-RATES

 

USA LOWER 48 TEMPERATURE 1979-2019 GIF

MEAN ANNUAL WARMING RATE = 1.7C/CENTURY

USAGIFAUS-RATES

 

AUSTRALIA MEAN TEMPERATURE 1979-2019 GIF

MEAN ANNUAL WARMING RATE = 1.9C/CENTURY

AUSTRALIA-GIFAUS-RATES

 

TROPICS MEAN TEMPERATURE 1979-2019 GIF

MEAN ANNUAL WARMING RATE = 1.2C/CENTURY

TROPICS-GIFAUS-RATES

 

NPOLAR MEAN TEMPERATURE 1979-2019 GIF

MEAN ANNUAL WARMING RATE = 2.57C/CENTURY

NPOLAR-GIFAUS-RATES

 

SPOLAR MEAN TEMPERATURE 1979-2019 GIF

MEAN ANNUAL WARMING RATE = 0.16C/CENTURY

SPOLAR-GIF

AUS-RATES