“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

The article below was written by Zuzana Janosova Den Boer, who experienced Communist rule in Czechoslovakia before coming to Canada. She said, “Having recognized all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda in my adopted country of Canada, I felt obligated to write the article below ( I survived communism – are you ready for your turn?)– because I do not want my adopted country to suffer the same fate as the country from which I emigrated (Czechoslovakia).”

Her warning is something all Canadians need to see. That’s why I’m sharing her article in full on SpencerFernando.com, and I encourage you to share it:

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

By Zuzana Janosova Den Boer

It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality – 100% of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!”, so proclaimed my professor during one of his lectures on the subject ‘scientific communism’, while the country of Czechoslovakia was still under communist control. I was reminded of his blustery pronouncement the first time I encountered the spurious claim that “a consensus of 97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made.” Most people don’t question scientific statements because they think they are facts. They do not understand that scientific statements must always be challenged, because Science is not about ‘consensus’ideology is.

In March of 2007, the website WorldNetDaily published an article entitled “Environmentalism is new communism”. In it, the former Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, stated: “It becomes evident that, while discussing climate, we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.” He goes on to describe environmentalism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.” Klaus has also written a book: “Blue planet in green shackles”, in which he states “communism and environmentalism have the same roots; they both suppress freedom.” He also warns that any brand of environmentalism calling for centralized planning of the economy under the slogan of ‘protecting nature’ is nothing less than a reincarnation of communism – new communism.

Klaus understands communist propaganda very well – he should. Most of us who lived and suffered under communism can instantly recognize any signs of communist ideology, no matter how slight or subtle. Since I received my own vaccination of communist propaganda, during the first 27 years of my life, I too am immune to this disease. If someone is trying to ‘save me’ against my will, I’m instantly wary and ready to fight back – if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. So try to imagine how I feel, now as a Canadian, when I see the same tactics and hear the same phrases I saw and heard for years under communism, only this time in English!  If you think I’m paranoid, or that communism in North America is far-fetched, then good luck to you – I hope you enjoy what’s coming your way:

“You [North] Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Nikita Khrushchev  (1960)

Communism can be characterized by a single word: deception. Communists never disclose their real intentions. They are fraudsters who employ different identities, names and slogans, all for one goal: totalitarian enslavement. Since 1970, the goal of the Communist Party USA has been to subvert environmentalism and use it to advance their agenda. In 1972, Gus Hall, then chairman of the Communist Party USA, stipulated in his book “Ecology”:

Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible …This is true in the struggle to save the environment … We must be the organizers, the leaders of these movements. What is new, is that knowledge of [a] point-of-no-return gives this struggle an unusual urgency.

This idea was incorporated into the US Green Party program in 1989 (the same year soviet communism collapsed), in which the fictitious threats of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are used to scare the public into believing humanity must “save the planet”:

This urgency, along with other Green issues and themes it interrelates, makes confronting the greenhouse [effect] a powerful organizing tool … Survival is highly motivating, and may help us to build a mass movement that will lead to large-scale political and societal change in a very short time …

First of all, we [must] inform the public that the crisis is more immediate and severe than [they] are being told, [that] its implications are too great to wait for the universal scientific confirmation that only eco-catastrophe would establish.”

Do you think the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is promoting science rather than socialism?  Read the following admission from the co-chair of the UN IPCC Working Group III, during an interview in 2010 with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

“We must free ourselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy … We must state clearly that we use climate policy de facto to redistribute the world’s wealth.”

Do I have your attention? Then let me describe to you how communist propaganda and methodology work.  There are 3 main stages:

1.      Polarization  (KGB term: “demoralization”)

2.      Destabilization

3.      Revolution

Stage 1:          Polarization – Divide and Conquer

In order to win power, communists first polarize their target society. The notion of injusticeis introduced. One group of people – poor workers – are made to feel victimized by a second group, to the point that they demand civil discourse. Who are these people that supposedly victimize poor workers? Here’s a clue:

Communists don’t care about poor people, they just hate rich ones”  – George Orwell

The one thing a communist cannot abide is a wealthy person. For communists, the rich are owners of private businesses, especially successful ones. They are loathed and demonized as heartless, spiteful monsters who exploit their employees and don’t care about their welfare. The rich are public enemy #1 – they don’t care about people or the environment; they care only about profit and wealth. Dare to disagree?  Then you are a “denier” and “imperialist traitor”, and after completion of stage 3, you will be physically liquidated.

“We must hate. Hatred is the basis of communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.”  – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

During the first stage, communists focus on altruistic people – people with big hearts, full of good intensions, who believe in doing good, for goodness’ sake. Why? Because idealistic people are usually naïve and easy to manipulate, especially via their emotions.  Recognizing how essential these people are to the success of his revolution, Lenin referred to them as “useful idiots”.

Stage 2:          Destabilization

During the second stage the basic values of society are targeted for change. This always starts with education:

Give me your child for eight years, and [he or she] will be a communist forever” –  Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Communism always uses teachers and the education system to impose its ideology and promote its values – through indoctrination. My own indoctrination started in elementary school. In grade four, we all had to become Young Pioneers. From that day, we were taught about the ‘imminent danger’ posed by capitalistic countries. The curriculum in school gradually but firmly established admiration for communism and loyalty to the communist party. We were constantly reminded of how we live in the “best political system in the world”, the “country with the best social justice and equality”.

Our teachers participated in this process, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I remember teachers who actively reinforced communist indoctrination in schools.  They exploited a child’s emotional immaturity, lack of experience and knowledge –vulnerability – to impose their communist ideas, beliefs and values. They took advantage of their position of authority, of the natural trust that children place in teachers, to brainwash a young and vulnerable generation – to train the next generation of communists. Scare-mongering was a favorite tactic: “Embrace communism! Fear capitalism! Otherwise, your country will be overtaken by imperialists and you will be exploited! … Who is not with us is against us!”

If you think this can’t happen in Canada, then I have news for you: it’s been happening for some time, in both Canada and the US. The environmental cause was targeted years ago by communists as a catalyst for promoting socialism and paving the way for communism.

New communism is based on all the old communist ideological principles and beliefs, but uses environmentalism as its agent of change, to completely alter the core values of western democracy and destabilize (demoralize) society.

As illustrated by the following excerpt from Captain Eco, written by Jonathon Porrit-Ellis Nadler and published in 1991, children are being indoctrinated in our schools, being made to believe that it’s their responsibility to ‘save the planet’:

“Your planet is in serious trouble – from pollution, toxic waste and the loss of forest, farmland and fresh water… Your parents and grandparents have made a mess of looking after the earth. They may deny it, but they are little more than thieves. And they are stealing your future from under your noses.”

Some more examples:

·        In May 2012, a grade-3 class took to the streets of Toronto with signs, to protest the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline. The protest was organized by their teacher and a local community volunteer. Pure Marxist method.  Just like these kids, who marched in protest to “save the planet”, we too were made by our teachers to march with banners and signs to save our country from imperialists.

·        In 2011, in Laval, Quebec, a six-year-old boy was disqualified from a teddy-bear contest because a Ziploc was found in his lunch instead of a reusable container. How did this boy feel, after being ostracized and excluded from his peers? Maybe he felt punished for his parents’ action. What’s the next step?  Encourage children to report their own parents, who use Ziplocs instead of reusable containers – denunciation is common practice during communism.

·        In April 2018, an Edmonton father went to an elementary school to see his grade-4 daughter’s play. In the play, the children sabotaged a factory, in the name of climate-change, then went on to save Alberta from its “evil oil industry” and “greedy oil barons”. Textbook communist methodology – demonizing the private sector (oil industry) by representing them as “greedy oil barons”.

In some university lecture halls, professors are also trying to indoctrinate the new upcoming proletariat. Every time I see elite university students protesting capitalism and advocating socialism, I wonder if they realize that if they succeed, it will be their very last protest. In an interview recorded in 1984, KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov described the consequences of ideological subversion (indoctrination). Here is a short excerpt:

A person who is demoralized (indoctrinated) is unable to assess true information, the facts tell nothing to him….even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures … even if I take him, by force, to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it … until he will receive a kick in his fat bottom.”

(Yuri Bezmenov – on “Useful Idiots” and the True Face of Communism)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4kHiUAjTvQ

The children currently attending our elementary schools will vote in 10-12 years. How many of these children are being (or have already been) brainwashed into believing that in order to “save the planet”, they must vote for a government that will stop “destroying the planet”, by eliminating private ownership and taking control of production?

“The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next

Abraham Lincoln

If you believe warm, cuddly socialism leads to utopian communism, in which equality and social justice prevail, then allow me to impart some insights about the ‘social justice’ delivered to us by communists. You deserve to know a little about the substance in which you will have to swim, before you dive into the cesspool called communism.

Stage 3:          Revolution

After gaining the support of a majority, communists call for a democratic election. If they win it, they seize power and abolish democratic elections altogether. At this point, members of opposition parties, along with all other opponents deemed to be a potential threat, are ‘physically liquidated’. (In case you aren’t familiar with this quaint communist phrase, it means executed). Private businesses are immediately seized and confiscated – nationalized. Key supporters who now finally realize how they have been manipulated and exploited (i.e. useful idiots who are no longer useful) are either jailed or executed, to prevent the formation of any dissident movements. All other useful idiots, having fulfilled their purpose of bringing communists to power, are now either enslaved into the new ideology, or disposed of in a variety of prescribed ways. A new privileged elite of communist party leaders is now formed. (No hypocrisy here! After all those angry claims of exploitation by a privileged elite, what’s the first thing communists do once they gain power?) Leaders of every key institution or organization: company, hospital, police, school, etc. are now replaced by an official member of the communist party. Competence, ability or fitness for the job is no longer relevant or required; the only prerequisite is loyalty to the party.

Economic Consequences of Communism:

Do you think communism failed because of oppression?  No. You can brainwash and threaten people, keep them dangling like puppets, until the supply of goods starts to disappear.   Economic reality always prevails.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other’s people money.” – Margaret Thatcher

 The economic consequences of communism are always the same – poverty, and this one comes with an ironclad guarantee – a lifetime warranty. People always spend their own money more carefully than someone else’s. Capitalism is about efficiency. Private businesses must spend their capital very carefully. They cannot afford to make investments in their business, unless they are sure it will be worth it. A mistake could result in an increased price for their product, reduced cash-flow, loss of competitiveness, eventual bankruptcy.

In a centrally planned economy, all production is controlled by government. The revenue required to operate the government and the economy is obtained through taxation. Because a centrally planned economy is not subject to the laws of supply and demand, financial goals become meaningless, since there are no penalties for not achieving them.  Thus, long-term government plans are never fulfilled and financial goals are replaced by imaginary production quotas. The result is profligate waste and inefficiency on a monumental scale. Communism institutes mandatory employment with pre-determined duties and salaries. The problem is lack of goods and services. Even if you have money, you will have few opportunities to spend it for your own benefit.

Both socialism and communism believe in the abolishment of private business; economic resources may be ‘publicly owned’, but they are controlled by government. Communism is implemented in two stages. During the first stage (socialism), wealth is distributed to people according to their productivity. During the second stage (communism), wealth is distributed according to individual need, but it is the government who decides what those needs are, and if they even matter, not the individual. Remember the key word: deception? Socialism equals communism. Any political party or organization that advocates socialism is advocating communism. If you think socialism cares about democracy or freedom, then reread “Stage 3: Revolution” above.

Life under Communism:

What is life under communism like? In the Eastern Bloc countries, shortages of basic goods began in the 1980s. People had to get up at 3 AM in order to stand in line for basic necessities: bread, milk, meat, eggs, toilet paper, oil, et cetera. You could stand in line for hours and not even get a chance to buy something, once products ran out.

Other appealing aspects:

·        Want an apartment? You can’t buy one; real-estate markets don’t exist. You’ll probably get one (eventually) for free, but the government will decide the size, type, location, as well as your position in the queue, which may take years.

·        Want a car?  You must first submit an application, or buy a permit, to buy a car from the government, then wait in line, for years. The wait time might be 2-3 years, or it could be as long as 7-10 years.

·        Want to use some recreational facilities (government built, of course) for your vacation? You need to be approved by a labor union, and wait.

·        Want day-care for your child? Submit an application, and wait.

·        Want a garage for your car? Submit an application, and wait. I submitted an application for a garage in 1988. When I left Slovakia in 1997, I still had not received a response.

Sound idyllic? But here’s the best part: there’s no guarantee you will ever receive an apartment, car, garage, daycare, recreation, or anything else you might want. If there is anyrecord (ever) of your non-compliance with communist ideology, you will receive nothing. As one communist leader informed me, after I refused to become member of a socialist party: “Forget about an apartment, forget about day-care, forget about a salary raise, forget about any benefits.”   Communism results in the poverty of an entire society. By comparison, free-market capitalism has lifted the highest number of people out of poverty in human history.

Corruption under Communism:

Because of lack of goods and services, corruption and bribery become endemic under communism. Of course, corruption also exists in capitalist countries, but communism elevates it to a completely different (systemic) level.

 “It’s not what you know, but who you know.”

To function, in order to survive, you must have a network of connections, and pay bribes, for everything:

·        Education may be for free, but there’s no guarantee you’ll ever get into your desired school’s program, even if you have top marks. The state might have different plans for you, or for your child. But with good connections, and the timely delivery of a valuable gift to the school principal or party leader, anything is possible.

·        Health care may be for free, but if you want your doctor to be sober for your surgery, better pay up. Paying bribes to doctors in cash or gold was common in the Eastern Bloc. I was even told how much I must pay by the doctor himself.

·        Police are a special case: corrupt, enjoying their power immensely.  Did you speed? Your choice is between a lesser bribe and much more expensive ticket. No court, no argument, no place to complain.

·        Need anything from government employees? Good luck. Communists invented stamps of different sizes and shapes. To get your document (or permit) stamped, you must pay a bribe.

·        Want a new book, new clothes, or a better piece of meat? Better know the saleswoman and be really nice to her.

·        Your car has broken down and needs repair? Oh dear, now you’re in real trouble. Leaving a car in a repair shop entails the risk of good (functioning) components in your car being secretly replaced by inferior (or non-functioning) ones. The good components will be sold or exchanged for other goods. This is how exchange markets work under communism.

Due to lack of goods, everyone steals. We used to say: “Who is not stealing from the State is robbing his own family”. Without connections, you will remain in a queue for a very long time.

And finally, here’s a truly delicious irony for you. Do you think communists care about the environment? I remember hills near chemical plants laid bare, denuded of vegetation by polluted air and acid rain from towns where heavy metals were produced, places where aluminum had poisoned the ground-water, cities where the haze from industrial smog was so thick you couldn’t see through it, and it hung there for months, places where noxious compounds in the air forced residents to wear face-masks. Naturally, there were environmental laws, all conveniently ignored, in the name of glorious socialism.

The worst part is fear, of being arrested, of being tortured, of dying as a political prisoner in a prison, labour camp or uranium mine (slow death from radiation poisoning), incarceration in an insane asylum (you have to be crazy to oppose the regime), or of the same thing happening to someone you love. Fear is the primary tool for keeping people silent and obedient. Those who do not comply are interrogated, tortured, intimidated, put under surveillance as MUKL (destined for liquidation) by the Secret Police, or just killed (quicker and much easier). Those political prostitutes called informers are everywhere, especially universities. They’ll report everything you do or say. Forget about freedom, of action, speech or even thought. The Party controls everything, and you voted for them, didn’t you?

“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. Those who have known freedom, then lost it, have never known it again”  – Ronald Reagan

How many people have been murdered in capitalist countries for not being supporters of capitalism? How many have been murdered by a capitalist state for being anti-capitalist?  If we turn the questions around and ask how many have been murdered in communist countries, the answer is between 80 to 100 million, globally.

We are currently in the second stage (destabilization) of the new green communism.  

Are we so gullible that we can be taken without one shot, as Khrushchev predicted? Have we all taken our (many) freedoms for granted? Are we prepared to gullibly give up those freedoms to those advocating ‘socialism’, or are we prepared to resist the tide of radical leftism? Socialism equals communism – and after reading this article, I hope you have no illusions about what it is or where it leads.

Canadians will soon have the chance to demonstrate if, and how much, they treasure their freedom.

Good luck, Canada!

Zuzana Janosova – den Boer   Calgary, Canada

https://www.facebook.com/zuzana.janosovadenboer.3

The Paris Climate Agreement Was Doomed Even Before the United States’ Withdrawal

Climate protest in Brussels, January 2019 (Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock.com)

The Paris climate agreement is a bad deal for America, costing jobs in the United States and putting the country at a competitive disadvantage with our international competitors. By finalizing this starting process on November 4 of this year, President Trump kept his campaign promise to put America first.

“It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, along with many, many other locations within our great country before Paris, France,” Trump said at a 2017 Rose Garden event, which initially announced the intention to withdraw.

For America’s sovereignty and continued economic success, Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement is among the most consequential actions he has taken since being elected president. But for the success of the Paris agreement itself, it is, as a practical matter, almost inconsequential, since the agreement was already well down the road to failure before the Trump administration made America’s withdrawal official.

As noted in a recent Washington Times article, nearly four years after the Paris agreement was enacted with full force, only two of the 32 top emitting countries — Morocco and Gambia — have actually “enacted policies consistent with holding global temperature rise from pre-industrial levels below 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to the Climate Action Tracker.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Faced with public backlash (on the streets and at the ballot box) against costly climate policies that have raised energy prices, the European Union and Japan — the two main driving forces behind the demand for stringent emissions reductions — have enacted policies that have increased their greenhouse gas emissions since the Paris agreement was signed.

Indeed, in response to the French “yellow vest” protests, the French government rescinded its stated plans to impose higher taxes on gasoline and electric power to meet its Paris climate commitments. Likewise, Australia’s prime minister was forced to resign after energy prices increased, and electric power blackouts occurred as a result of the country’s climate policies. New political parties arose, running explicitly on platforms embracing skepticism that humans are causing catastrophic climate change and supporting the continued used of fossil fuels. Candidates from these parties promptly won seats in parliaments in both the Netherlands and Finland.

Furthermore, since 2015, climate realists in the Trump mold have been elected premiers of Ontario and Alberta and as president of Brazil. Most recently, protests in Chile halted the government’s plans to raise costs for riding the metro and further increase electric power prices to pay for the government’s forced transition from relatively inexpensive coal, natural gas, and oil to expensive, less reliable renewable energy.

Chilean President Sebastián Piñera’s green virtue-signaling ended when, after putting troops on the streets to quell the country’s energy riots, he was then forced to cancel Chile’s plans to host the 25th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Paris agreement has obviously been a disaster. The single biggest reason it is doomed to fail is its treatment of China and India. Not only did these countries refuse to pledge to cut emissions, they also said they expected their emissions to peak at some point in the future. Peak at what level, one might ask? As the first and third-largest global greenhouse gas emitters, respectively, if these countries’ emissions increase even 10 or 20 percent, their emissions growth will swamp reductions made by other countries under the Paris agreement. And to be clear, their emissions have gone up sharply since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015.

China announced it would open 17 new coal mines in 2019, adding to the seven new mines it opened in the 2017–18 fiscal year. Additionally, to meet industrial and electric demand, China, the world’s largest importer of coal, is on pace to import 10 percent more coal by rail and sea in 2019 than it did in 2018.

Elsewhere in Asia, the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2019 “International Energy Outlook” projects coal use to grow through at least 2050. EIA estimates the global coal trade will grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent through 2050, with India surpassing China as the world’s largest coal importer by 2050, increasing its annual coal production by approximately 2.7 percent per year to satisfy growing domestic demand.

Benny Peiser, director of London’s Global Warming Policy Forum, explained to the Washington Times that the blowback over climate change policies shows “[T]he Paris agreement is likely to end in failure, just like the [1992] Kyoto Protocol did before.

“It is becoming increasingly evident that most governments around the world are prioritizing energy security, affordability, and industrial competitiveness over the Paris climate agreement,” Peiser told the Times.

Even before President Trump made official the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris agreement, the deal was collapsing under the weight of its broken emissions reduction promises and the exemptions granted to the world’s biggest emitters.

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (hburnett@heartland.org) is a senior fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

Climate alarmists use junk science to promote their agenda

unnamed (3)
By Dr. Ed Berry

GrettaJPGGretta snarls at you for using fossil fuels. Bill Gates, George Soros, and others pay to manage and promote Gretta because she inspires the brainwashed younger generation to accept junk science. She is reminiscent of the Joe Camel advertising that caused a large increase in youth smoking.

“Trump pulls out of the UN Paris Climate Agreement” vs “More than 11,000 scientists from around the world declare a ‘climate emergency’”

In a moment, I will to show you a simple proof that President Trump is a better climate scientist than all 11,000 climate science imposters who claim we have a “climate emergency.”

Those 11,000 so-called “scientists” don’t know a freaking thing about climate science. If they were MD’s, they would be to using leaches to suck your blood. Today, they are opportunists who suck your money and your freedom. They are guilty of climate malpractice. There are not 11,000 real climate scientists on the planet.

So, who are these people?

The public believes “climate change protesters” are climate experts. They believe those who “care about the environment” are climate experts. They believe Gretta is a climate expert.

Universities train students to be ecologists, environmentalists, climate activists, and socialists. These students graduate thinking they are climate experts. Governors appoint them to climate expert panels. The government gives them money. Congress, state legislatures, lawyers, and the media think these graduates are climate experts. Thus, they get the headlines. But they are not climate experts.

Climate change is a subject of physics. Without physics, there is no climate science. But who wants to study physics? It’s much easier to be a climate alarmist. Besides, that’s where the money is.

Here’s some basic science truth to help you decide who to believe about climate change.

First, no one can prove a theory is true. Climate alarmists have a theory. Their theory is that human carbon emissions cause global warming, global warming causes climate change, and climate change causes bad stuff to happen.

Then they claim the bad stuff PROVES human carbon causes climate change. Isn’t that what you read in the news every day?

In logic, their argument is called the “argument of ignorance” or “affirming the consequent.”

Aristotle explained their false illogic 2300 years ago. Here is a parallel version of this illogic that you will readily understand:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.

Bill Gates is rich. So, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The point is events do not prove their cause. Claims that bad stuff happens does not prove we caused it. Get it?

So, how does science work?

Glad you asked.

Science works by proving theories false. Having 11,000 claims that a theory is true is meaningless. One scientist who gives you valid evidence that their theory is not true, wins the science debate.

Scientific truth is not decided by votes. No amount of evidence can prove a theory is true.

Yet, the promotion of that logical fallacy is at the basis of the claims that we are causing climate change and all the bad stuff that it makes happen.

Did you learn that in school?

I just finished writing another scientific paper. It proves human emissions do not cause climate change. All 11,000 who claim otherwise are wrong.

My focus on this paper kept me from writing to you every week as I like to do. Now, my preprint is finished, and I am free again to write to you again.

Why should you believe me versus all those who tell you we are causing climate change?

In high school, I scored a perfect 800 on the SAT exam while finishing in half the allotted time. I was accepted by Caltech, MIT, and Reed. I choose Caltech. Linus Pauling was among the fantastic teachers who taught me science and logic. After graduating from Caltech, Dartmouth College gave me a teaching fellowship in physics. Then, the University of Nevada in Reno gave me a research fellowship in physics. My PhD mentors included William T. Scott and Friedwart Winterberg. Winterberg was known as the best student of Heisenberg, who was a Nobel Laureate in physics. Thirty years later, Winterberg said I was his best student. My theoretical PhD thesis was a significant breakthrough in climate physics that still gets many citations every year. Other scientists have explained my thesis work in their textbooks.

There was more to Caltech than science and engineering. It was the honor system. That meant we had to be honest. No one stole anything at Caltech. No one cheated on exams. All without policing. I bring that system to you. I will tell you the truth about climate science.

Climate science today

Until about the 1980’s climate science was science. Now, climate “science” is climate politics and feelings. Most people don’t know the difference between real science and fake science. The climate alarmists have a political agenda, a ton of money, and an absence of science.

Climate politics wants you to believe the climate lie that our carbon emissions cause climate change. If you believe the lie, you will vote for a socialist government. Climate politics rejects climate truth because truth stops them from achieving their political agenda.

The climate activists want power. They want to control you. They want America to decline in power. They want a socialist world government to run the world and America.

I don’t want that to happen. But it will take a lot more people than me to stop it.

If you don’t want that to happen, then you must help bring climate truth to your country.

Therefore, I am planning to organize a climate action group composed of people who wish to help bring climate truth to America. We need to get major media attention. We need to bring our message to President Trump and the Republican Party because they are the only people who will support climate truth.

I will tell you more about this in my next letter.

A simple way to know the climate alarmists are lying.

I know, their lips are moving. But here is something much more specific. Here is the UN IPCC Figure 6.1 that claims to represent the carbon cycle.

UN IPCC Figure 6.1. Natural and human carbon cycles data. This figure proves all climate alarmist claims are invalid.
This figure extracts the IPCC data for the human carbon cycle from Figure 6.1.

This figure shows the IPCC human carbon cycle is fake science. Because it is fake, all IPCC’s claims that human carbon emissions cause climate change are invalid.

Let’s see if I can explain this to you.

This figure represents the four carbon reservoirs: Land, Atmosphere, Surface Ocean, and Deep Ocean.

All human carbon begins in the atmosphere. Then human carbon flows to the other reservoirs. You can think of these four reservoirs as water buckets of different sizes with tubes connecting them. You fill only the atmosphere bucket and let the water flow to the other buckets.

Here are 3 blatant scientific errors in IPCC’s human carbon cycle:

Problem 1: The Surface Ocean level is zero, but the Deep Ocean level is 155. Carbon can’t get to the Deep Ocean without first adding carbon to the Surface Ocean, and it can’t get there when the flow is zero.

Problem 2: The land level is negative at -30. That is impossible. That is like having a glass filled with negative water.

Problem 3: IPCC’s natural carbon cycle (shown only in IPCC Fig. 6.1) has the atmosphere level at 1.5%. But IPCC’s human carbon (shown here) has the atmosphere level at 65.7%.

This difference proves IPCC treats human carbon differently than it treats natural carbon. This violates physics because nature will treat human and natural carbon the same.

IPCC has stacked the deck in its invalid attempt to prove human carbon emissions cause climate change. But we have now caught them with their diapers down.

In summary, these 3 errors alone bring down the whole IPCC argument that human carbon emissions cause climate change.

The 11,000 so-called “scientists” and all climate alarmists – who claim we have a “climate emergency” – promote junk science.

The giga and terra scam of offshore wind energy

The latest “renewable, sustainable” energy claims show the IEA belongs in an insane asylum

Paul Driessen

Can anti-fossil fuel policies based on climate crisis alarmism possibly get any more insane than this?

In what might be described as a pre-Halloween trick of ginormous proportions, the International Energy Agency (IEA) now asserts that “renewable, sustainable” energy output will explode over the next two decades. Certainly for onshore wind and solar energy – but especially for offshore wind, says the IEA.

“Offshore wind currently provides just 0.3% of global power generation,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol noted. But “wind farms” constructed closer than 37 miles from coastlines around the world, where waters are less than 60 meters (197 feet) deep, could generate 36,000 terawatt-hours (36 million gigawatt-hours or 36 billion megawatt-hours) of electricity a year, he assures us. That’s well above the current global demand of 23,000 terawatt hours, Birol and a new IEA report say.

In fact, the potential for offshore wind energy is so great, the IEA asserts, that 20 years from now the industry will be 15 times bigger than in 2019 – and will attract $1 trillion a year in investments (riding the coat tails of government mandates and subsidies). The boom will result from lower costs per megawatt, larger turbines, and technological developments like floating platforms for turbines, says the IEA.

Wind “farms”? Like some cute, rustic Old McDonald family farm? Are you kidding me? These would be massive offshore electricity factories, with thousands, even millions, of turbines and blades towering 500-700 feet above the waves. Only a certifiable lunatic, congenital liar, complete true believer, would-be global overseer or campaign-cash-hungry politician could possibly repeat this IEA hype – or call these wind energy factories renewable, sustainable or eco-friendly.

They all clearly need yet another bucket of icy cold energy reality dumped over their heads – in addition to this one, this one and this one. If the world buys into this crazy scheme, we all belong in straitjackets.

As I have said many times, wind and sunshine may be free, renewable, sustainable and eco-friendly. But the turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, lands, raw materials and dead birds required to harness this widely dispersed, intermittent, weather-dependent energy to benefit humanity absolutely are not.

A single 1.8-MW onshore wind turbine requires over 1,000 tons of steel, copper, aluminum, rare earth elements, zinc, molybdenum, petroleum-based composites, reinforced concrete and other raw materials. A 3-MW version requires 1,550 tons of these non-renewable materials.

By my rough calculations (here and here), replacing just the USA’s current electricity generation, backup coal and natural gas power plants, gasoline-powered vehicles, factory furnaces, and other fossil fuel uses with wind turbines and backup batteries would require: some 14 million 1.8-MW onshore turbines, sprawling across some 1.8 billion acres, some 15 billion tons of raw materials, thousands of new or expanded mines worldwide, and thousands of mostly fossil fuel-powered factories working 24/7/365 in various foreign countries (since we won’t allow them in the USA) to manufacture all this equipment.

Those overseas mines now “employ” tens of thousands of fathers, mothers and children – at slave wages.

Can you imagine what it would take to build, install and maintain 36 billion megawatt-hours of offshore wind turbines … in 20 to 200 feet of water … many on floating platforms big and strong enough to support monstrous 600-foot-tall turbines … in the face of winds, waves, salt spray, storms and hurricanes?

The impacts on terra firma … and terra aqua … would be monumental, intolerable and unsustainable.

Moreover, a new study – by the company that has built more offshore industrial wind facilities than any other on Earth – has found that offshore turbines and facilities actually generate much less electricity than previously calculated, expected or claimed! That’s because every turbine slows wind speeds for every other turbine. Of course, that means even more turbines, floating platforms and raw materials. Using 3, 9 or 10-MW turbines would mean fewer of the beasts, of course, but larger towers, bases and platforms.

More turbines will mean countless seagoing birds will get slaughtered and left to sink uncounted and unaccountable beneath the waves. The growing jungle of fixed and floating turbines will severely interfere with surface and submarine ship traffic, while constant vibration noises from the towers will impair whale and other marine mammals’ sonar navigation systems. Visual pollution will be significant. And there’d be thousands of miles of submarine cables bringing electricity to onshore transmission lines.

Maps depicting the USA’s best wind resource areas show that they are concentrated down the middle of the continent – right along migratory flyways for monarch butterflies, geese, endangered whooping cranes and other airborne species; along the Pacific Coast; and along the Atlantic Seaboard.

Coastal states, especially their big urban areas, tend to be hotbeds of climate anxiety and wind-solar activism. Indeed, many Democrat Green New Deal governors and legislators have mandated 80-100% “clean, renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly” energy by 2040 or 2050. California, Oregon and Washington in the West … and Maine, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Virginia in the East … are notable examples. So the IEA’s love affair with offshore wind energy is certainly understandable. Of course, Blue State Great Lakes would also be excellent candidates for fixed and floating turbines.

Pacific Ocean waters typically get deep very quickly. So thousands of huge floating platforms would be needed there, although Puget Sound is also windy and could be partially denuded for turbines, as they’ve done in West Virginia’s mountains. California prefers to import its electricity from neighboring states, rather than generating its own power. However, as Margaret Thatcher might say, pretty soon you run out of other people’s energy. So homegrown wind energy will soon be essential – and inland Golden State and Middle America voters would almost certainly support putting turbines straight offshore from Al Gore’s $9-million mansion in Montecito and the Obamas’ $15-million cottage in Rancho Mirage.

When it comes to actually implementing these ambitious “renewable energy goals,” resistance and delays grow exponentially. A Massachusetts wind project for 170 offshore wind turbines was originally proposed around 2001. It’s now down to 130 3.6-MW behemoth turbines, with the US Interior Department delaying permits yet again, pending “further study.” The reaction of coastal residents to the reality of endless thousands of turbines could well turn into Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Forever.

Actual electricity output is rarely as advertised. It often hits 20% or lower, depending on locations – and fails completely on the hottest and coldest days, when electricity is most urgently needed. During the July 2006 California heat wave, turbines generated only 5% of nameplate capacity. In Texas, wind capacity factors are generally 9% to 12% (or even down to 4% or zero) during torrid summer months. Offshore, echoing Samuel Taylor Coleridge, they’d be as idle as a fleet of painted turbines upon a painted ocean.

Actual wind turbine electricity output declines by 16% per decade of operation – and worse than that offshore, because of storms and salt spray. Removing obsolete offshore turbines requires huge derrick barges and near-perfect weather. Costs and difficulties multiply with turbine size, increasing distance from shore, and whether concrete bases and electrical cables must be removed and seabeds returned to their original condition, as is required today for offshore oil and gas operations.

Cutting up 300-foot (or taller) towers and 200-foot (or longer) blades from offshore turbines, and hauling the sections to onshore landfills and scrap yards, is no piece of cake. Recycling blades is also difficult, because they are made from fiberglass, carbon fibers and petroleum resins; burning blades releases hazardous dust and toxic gases, and so is (or should be) prohibited.

Dismantling and disposal costs could easily reach millions of dollars per offshore turbine, and many billions for every industrial-scale wind “farm.” But wind energy operators should not be allowed to simply leave their derelicts behind, as they have done with smaller turbines in Hawaii and California.

Bottom line: From any economic, environmental, raw materials or energy perspective, offshore wind energy is simply unsustainable. 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.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of many books, reports and articles on energy, climate and environmental issues.

Victor Davis Hanson: Democrats have turned California into a problem-plagued burning nightmare

More than 2 million Californians were recently left without power after the state’s largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric — which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year — preemptively shut down transmission lines in fear that they might spark fires during periods of high autumn winds.

Consumers blame the state for not cleaning up dead trees and brush, along with the utility companies for not updating their ossified equipment. The power companies in turn fault the state for so over-regulating utilities that they had no resources to modernize their grids.

Californians know that having tens of thousands of homeless in their major cities is untenable. In some places, municipal sidewalks have become open sewers of garbage, used needles, rodents and infectious diseases. Yet no one dares question progressive orthodoxy by enforcing drug and vagrancy laws, moving the homeless out of cities to suburban or rural facilities, or increasing the number of mental hospitals.

Taxpayers in California, whose basket of sales, gasoline and income taxes is the highest in the nation, quietly seethe while immobile on antiquated freeways that are crowded, dangerous and under nonstop makeshift repair.

Gas prices of $4 to $5 a gallon — the result of high taxes, hyper-regulation and green mandates — add insult to the injury of stalled commuters. Gas tax increases ostensibly intended to fund freeway expansion and repair continue to be diverted to the state’s failing high-speed rail project.

Residents shrug that the state’s public schools are among weakest in the nation, often ranking in the bottom quadrant in standardized test scores. Elites publicly oppose charter schools but often put their own kids in private academies.

Californians know that to venture into a typical municipal emergency room is to descend into a modern Dante’s Inferno. Medical facilities are overcrowded. They can be as unpleasant as they are bankrupting to the vanishing middle class that must face exorbitant charges to bring in an injured or sick child.

No one would dare to connect the crumbling infrastructure, poor schools and failing public health care with the non-enforcement of immigration laws, which has led to a massive influx of undocumented immigrants from the poorest regions of the world, who often arrive without fluency in English or a high-school education.

Stores are occasionally hit by swarming looters. Such Wild West criminals know how to keep their thefts under $950, ensuring that such “misdemeanors” do not warrant police attention. California’s permissive laws have decriminalized thefts and break-ins. The result is that San Francisco now has the highest property crime rate per capita in the nation.

Has California become premodern?

Millions of fed-up middle-class taxpayers have fled the state. Their presence as a stabilizing influence is sorely missed. About one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California. Millions of poor newcomers require enormously expensive state health, housing, education, legal and law-enforcement services.

California is now a one-party state. Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature. Only seven of the state’s 53 congressional seats are held by Republicans. The result is that there is no credible check on a mostly coastal majority.

Huge global wealth in high-tech, finance, trade and academia poured into the coastal corridor, creating a new nobility with unprecedented riches. Unfortunately, the new aristocracy adopted mindsets antithetical to the general welfare of Californians living outside their coastal enclaves. The nobodies have struggled to buy high-priced gas, pay exorbitant power bills and deal with shoddy infrastructure — all of which resulted from the policies of the distant somebodies.

California’s three most powerful politicians — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Gov. Gavin Newsom — are all multimillionaires. Their lives, homes and privileges bear no resemblance to those of other Californians living with the consequences of their misguided policies and agendas.

The state’s elite took revolving-door entries and exits for granted. They assumed that California was so naturally rich, beautiful and well-endowed that there would always be thousands of newcomers who would queue up for the weather, the shore, the mountains and the hip culture.

Yet California is nearing the logical limits of progressive adventurism in policy and politics.

Residents carefully plan long highway trips as if they were ancient explorers charting dangerous routes. Tourists warily enter downtown Los Angeles or San Francisco as if visiting a politically unstable nation.

Insatiable state tax collectors and agencies are viewed by the public as if they were corrupt officials of Third World countries seeking bribes. Californians flip their switches unsure of whether the lights will go on. Many are careful about what they say, terrified of progressive thought police who seem more worried about critics than criminals.

Our resolute ancestors took a century to turn a wilderness into California. Our irresolute generation in just a decade or two has been turning California into a wilderness.

America Being Misled by Cook, Oreskes, Lewandowsky and Maibach

Guest “liar, liar, pants on fire” by David Middleton on Watts Up With That

Hat tip to Dr. Willie Soon…

America Misled: How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate change

Over the past few decades, the fossil fuel industry has subjected the American public to a well-funded, well-orchestrated disinformation campaign about the reality and severity of human-caused climate change. The purpose of this web of denial has been to confuse the public and decision-makers in order to delay climate action and thereby protect fossil fuel business interests and defend libertarian, free-market conservative ideologies. The fossil fuel industry’s denial and delay tactics come straight out of Big Tobacco’s playbook. As a result, the American public have been denied the right to be accurately informed about climate change, just as they were denied the right to be informed about the risks of smoking by the tobacco industry. While fossil fuel companies attacked the science and called on politicians to “reset the alarm,” climate-catalyzed damages worsened, including increased storm intensities, droughts, forest damage and wildfires, all at substantial loss of life and cost to the American people.

This report explores the techniques used to mislead the American public about climate change, and outlines ways of inoculating against disinformation.

George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication

The authors of this malicious and defamatory pack of lies are:

  • John Cook, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University
  • Geoffrey Supran, Department of the History of Science, Harvard University
  • Stephan Lewandowsky, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
  • Naomi Oreskes, Department of the History of Science, Harvard University
  • Edward Maibach, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University

This reads like a particularly idiotic Skeptical Science blog post.

The 97% Consensus Lie

Figure 1. The 97% lie.

Cook 2014 and its cooked consensus

Cook 2014 was nothing but the second hand opinions of Skeptical Science bloggers. Most of the surveys listed in figure 1 are similar second hand opinion exercises. These sorts of papers consist of abstract reviews. The authors’ then tabulate their opinions regarding whether or not the abstracts support the AGW paradigm. As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.

Figure 2. Cook’s cooked consensus (click to enlarge).

The largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it.” They provided this example of an implied endorsement:

‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’

Carbon sequestration in soil, lime muds, trees, seawater, marine calcifiers and a whole lot of other things have always been important for mitigating a wide range of natural processes. I have no doubt that I have implicitly routinely “endorsed” the so-called consensus based on this example.

The second largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize.” Pardon my obtuseness, but how in the heck can one explicitly endorse the notion that “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic” without quantification? This is the example Cook provided:

‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’

By this subjective standard, I have probably explicitly endorsed AGW a few times in WUWT posts.

Doran 2009 was a 97% consensus among 79 respondents

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 was a survey of Earth Scientists listed in the American Geosciences Institute directory. The AGI includes AGU, AAPG and numerous other Earth Science societies. . This survey sample was limited to academic and government Earth Scientists. It excluded all Earth Scientists working in private sector businesses. The two key questions were:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

I am a member of two AGI affiliated societies, AAPG and SEG, but not in the directories of academic institutions or government agencies. So, there was as zero-point-zero percent chance of me and about 50,000 other geoscientists being surveyed.

Had I been surveyed, I would have answered risen to #1 and my answer to #2 would have depended on the meaning of “human activity is a significant contributing factor.” If I realized it was a “push poll,” I would have answered “no.”

Interestingly, government and academic economic geologists and meteorologists were the most likely to answer “no” to question #2…

The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).

The authors derisively dismissed the opinions of geologists and meteorologists…

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

No discipline has a better understanding of the “nuances” than meteorologists and no discipline has a better understanding of the “scientific basis of long-term climate processes” than geologists.

The authors close with a “no schist, Sherlock” bar chart:

If a survey was conducted of active publishers of abiotic oil papers, it would probably also yield a consensus. The same could be said of UFO researchers. Doran 2009 was an example of expertise cherry-picking and a total non sequitur… The conclusion doesn’t follow from the survey questions.

Stenhouse 2014 was a 52% “consensus”

The 97% claim from Stenhouse et al., 2014 was also contrived via expertise cherry-picking. These were the actual survey results:

Figure 3. 89% × 59% = 52%… A far cry from the oft claimed 97% consensus. (click to enlarge)
Figure 4. The 52% consensus. (click to enlarge)

When self-described “climate scientists” and meteorologists/atmospheric scientists are segregated the results become even more interesting…

Figure 5. Expertise cherry-picking. (click to enlarge)

Only 45% of meteorologists and atmospheric scientists endorse the so-called consensus.  Even self-described climate scientists only reach 78%.

The 52% overall “consensus” among the membership of the American Meteorological Society was explained away as being due to “perceived scientific consensus,” “political ideology,” and a lack of “expertise” among non-publishing meteorologists and atmospheric scientists…

While we found that higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful, this relationship was less strong than for political ideology and perceived consensus. At least for the measure of expertise that we used, climate science expertise may be a less important influence on global warming views than political ideology or social consensus norms. More than any other result of the study, this would be strong evidence against the idea that expert scientists’ views on politically controversial topics can be completely objective.

Finally, we found that perceiving conflict at AMS was associated with lower certainty of global warming views, lower likelihood of viewing global warming as human caused, and lower ratings of predicted harm caused by global warming.

So… Clearly, 97% of AMS membership would endorse the so-called consensus if they were more liberal, more accepting of unanimity and published more papers defending failed climate models.  No schist, Sherlock!

On top of all that, Stenhouse didn’t even ask the right questions. The so-called consensus is that humans have caused more than half of the warming since 1950. Stenhouse asked about the past 150 years.

Why did the misleaders omit Maibach et al., 2016?

Maibach is one of the authors of the pack of lies, yet they failed to even mention his 2016 AMS survey.

This survey told us that atmospheric scientists were very divided about climate change since 1950.

The questions also eerily correlate with this infamous Tweet…

Barack Obama

@BarackObama

Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://OFA.BO/gJsdFp 

3,184 people are talking about this

“Climate change is real”

Page 8 from AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016-4
Figure 6. Close, but no cigar… Only 96% of “scientists” agree that climate change is real.

“Man-made”

Pages_11_12 from AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016_Page_1
Figure 7. Only 67% of “scientists” characterized climate change as real and man-made.

“And dangerous”

Page 20 from AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016-2
Figure 8. Only 38% of “scientists” characterized climate change as having been dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the past 50 years.
Page 22 from AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016-3
Figure 9. Only 50% of “scientists” characterized climate change as being dangerous (primarily or exclusively harmful impacts) over the next 50 years.

“And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

 So climate change can no longer be denied – or ignored. The world is looking to the United States – to us – to lead. 

–Former (thankfully) President Barack Hussein Obama, April 18, 2015

survey-says-300x250
Pages_11_12 from AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016_Page_2
Figure 10. Only 18% of “scientists” thought that there was any point in destroying our economy in order to prevent the weather from changing. Fully 41% of “scientists” indicated that climate change might as well be “ignored.”

Climate Change…

Survey Says.png
Figure 11. Survey says…

Why did the misleaders omit Stenhouse 2017?

Stenhouse et al., 2017 tells us that there is conflict within the American Meteorological Society on the subject of climate change.

This article analyzes open-ended survey responses to understand how members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) perceive conflict within the AMS over global warming. Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects, and 53% saw at least some unproductive aspects. Among members who saw a productive side to the conflict, most agreed as to why it was productive: debate and diverse perspectives enhance science. However, among members who saw an unproductive side, there was considerable disagreement as to why. Members who are convinced of largely human-caused climate change expressed that debate over global warming sends an unclear message to the public. Conversely, members who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change often felt that their peers were closed-minded and suppressing unpopular views. These two groups converged, however, on one point: politics was seen as an overwhelmingly negative influence on the debate. This suggests that scientific organizations faced with similar conflict should understand that there may be a contradiction between legitimizing all members’ views and sending a clear message to the public about the weight of the evidence. The findings also reinforce the conclusion that attempts by scientific societies to directly address differences in political views may be met with strong resistance by many scientists.

The #ExxonKnew Secret Science Lie

Apart from the bit about defending “libertarian, free-market conservative ideologies”, this is a pack of lies:

Over the past few decades, the fossil fuel industry has subjected the American public to a well-funded, well-orchestrated disinformation
campaign about the reality and severity of human-caused climate
change. The purpose of this web of denial has been to confuse the public and decision-makers in order to delay climate action and thereby protect fossil fuel business interests and defend libertarian, free-market conservative ideologies 1. The fossil fuel industry’s denial and delay tactics come straight out of Big Tobacco’s playbook. As a result, the American public have been denied the right to be accurately informed about climate change, just as they were denied the right to be informed about the risks of smoking by the tobacco industry. While fossil fuel companies attacked the science and called on politicians to “reset the alarm,” climate-catalyzed damages worsened, including increased storm intensities, droughts, forest damage and wildfires, all at substantial loss of life and cost to the American people 2.

Cook et al., 2019

Figure 12. #ExxonKnew what the US government knew… So what? (click to enlarge)

The cartoon of a climate model is from the 1978 Black presentation:

Figure 13. Exxon’s secret climate model.

The fossil fuel industries couldn’t have denied the American public “the right to be accurately informed about climate change” if we had tried.

Everything oil companies allegedly knew came from publicly available government and/or academic sources

One of the allegedly most damning documents was the 1968 Robinson Report for the American Petroleum Institute (API).

In 1968, scientists with the Stanford Research Institute reported to the American Petroleum Institute about their research on atmospheric pollutants of interest to the industry. Summarizing the available science, the scientists saved their starkest warnings for carbon dioxide (CO2). They cautioned that rising levels of CO2 would likely result in rising global temperatures and warned that, if temperatures increased significantly, the result could be melting ice caps, rising sea levels, warming oceans, and serious environmental damage on a global scale.

1968 “THE ROBINSON REPORT”

A page reproduced from this damning report referenced Möller (1963) as the source of a 1-7 °F rise in temperature due to a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2

Figure 14. Möller (1963)

Unless Exxon owned the American Geophysical Union back then, Möller (1963) was not a secret document…

On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate
F. Möller

Abstract
The numerical value of a temperature change under the influence of a CO2 change as calculated by Plass is valid only for a dry atmosphere. Overlapping of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the range around 15 μ essentially diminishes the temperature changes. New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long-wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self-amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case. It is shown, however, that the changed radiation conditions are not necessarily compensated for by a temperature change. The effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be compensated for completely by a change in the water vapor content of 3 per cent or by a change in the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at all. Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.

Journal of Geophysical Research

From the full paper…

In this case, we must distinguish between the assumptions that the water vapor content (in cm l.e.) remains unchanged in spite of heating (cooling) of the atmosphere and that it increases (decreases). Constant absolute humidity means that the relative humidity (f) decreases from 75 to 70.34 per cent with a 1° or lowered by 4.66 per cent per deg. According to the above-mentioned calculations, an increase in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm gives us a temperature change ΔT = +1.5° for Δf = -4.66 per cent per deg, and a temperature change ΔT = +9.6° for Δf = 0.

[…]

We recognize that for Δf = 0.8 per cent per deg the temperature change becomes infinite. Very small variations effect a reversal of sign or huge amplifications.

It is not too difficult to infer from these numbers that the variation in the radiation budget from a changed CO2 concentration can be compensated for completely without any variation in the surface temperature when the cloudiness is increased by +0.006 or the water vapor content is decreased by -0.07 cm l.e.

[…]

These are variations in the cloudiness by 1 per cent of its value or in the water vapor content by 3 per cent of its value. No meteorologist or climatologist would dare to determine the mean cloudiness or mean water content of the atmosphere with such accuracy; much less can a change of this order of magnitude be proved or its existence denied. Because of these values the entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is becoming questionable.

Möller (1963)

So, as far back as 1963, Exxon knew exactly what we know today:

The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.

The infamous 1978 Black presentation was just a review of government and academic publications on the so-called greenhouse effect.

Here’s what Exxon knew in 1978…

Figure 15. Exxon knew that most government and academic scientists wanted more research money.
Figure 16. There’s a lot of schist we don’t know.
Figure 17. In 1978, Exxon knew that the effects on sea level and the polar ice caps would likely be negligible, models were useless and more effort should be directed at paleoclimatology.

Black’s allegedly proprietary climate model was just another cartoon based on publicly available literature.

Figure 18. What Exxon knew during “The Ice Age Cometh.”

I added HadCRUT4 to highlight how Hansen-ian it was in its wrongness.

This allegedly proprietary Exxon climate model is a cartoon derived from a 1979 National Research Council publication

Figure 19. What Exxon knew in 1982.

I plotted HadCRUT4 and MLO CO2 on it at the same scale… The models were wrong back then and are not much better now.

By 1978, Exxon knew that Gorebal Warming was 97% horst schist and that future climate models would fail miserably.

By 1982, Exxon’s “brilliant climate modelers” (/SARC) predicted that, apart from the recent El Niño, HadCRUT4 would remain within the “range of natural fluctuations (climatic noise) for at least the next 40 years.

Exxon: The Fork Not Taken

An amazing feat, considering that “the first-ever synthesis of land and marine temperature data – i.e., the first global temperature record” didn’t exist before 1989.

References

Cook, J., Supran, G., Lewandowsky, S., Oreskes, N., & Maibach, E., (2019). America Misled: How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate change. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Available at https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/america-misled/

Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., et al. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024.

Doran, P., & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 99, 22–23.

Legates DR, Soon WW-H, Briggs WM et al. (2013) Climate consensus and “misinformation”: a rejoinder to “agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change”. Sci Educ. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.

Maibach, E., Perkins, D., Francis, Z., Myers, T., Englbom, A., et al. (2016). A 2016 National Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA: Center for Climate Change Communication.

Möller, F. (1963). “On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate”. J. Geophys. Res., 68(13), 3877–3886, doi:10.1029/JZ068i013p03877.

National Research Council. 1979. “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment”. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12181.

Stenhouse, N., and Coauthors, 2014: Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.95, 1029–1040, doi:https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1.

Stenhouse, N., A. Harper, X. Cai, S. Cobb, A. Nicotera, and E. Maibach, 2017: Conflict about Climate Change at the American Meteorological Society: Meteorologists’ Views on a Scientific and Organizational Controversy. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 98, 219–223, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00265.1

Further Reading

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 1)

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part Deux, “Same as it ever was.”)

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 3, Exxon: The Fork Not Taken

“Smoke & Fumes”… The dumbest attack on ExxonMobil evah’

“Smoke & Fumes,” Part Deux: Exxon Knew “The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”

Even dumber than the dumbest attack on ExxonMobil evah’

What Did Shell Know and When Did They Know It?

The Guardian: “Climate change denial won’t even benefit oil companies soon”… Is it even grammatically possible to deny climate change?

HuffPost: The Dumbest #ExxonKnew Article… EVAH!

NY Attorney General Defies Judge’s Order in Exxon Case

ExxonKnew Epic Fail: Oil Companies DID NOT build “their rigs to account for sea-level rise”

Defending Mann’s Hockey Stick because #ExxonKnew

Kamala Harris Lied About #ExxonKnew Lies

This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather — so politicians attacked

And so, many scientists who have the facts and know the truth remain silent

Hurricanes have not been proven to be more frequent or more dangerous than in the past.WILMA.png

NOAA / AFP / Getty Images
Special to Financial Post

June 19, 2019
12:45 PM EDT

By Ross McKitrick

This week in Vancouver, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal carbon tax, a key pillar in his government’s climate policy, will help protect Canadians from extreme weather. “Extreme weather events are extraordinarily expensive for Canadians, our communities and our economy,” he said, citing the recent tornadoes in Ottawa and wildfires in Western Canada. “That’s why we need to act.”

While members of the media may nod along to such claims, the evidence paints a different story. Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist at University of Colorado in Boulder who, up until a few years ago, did world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather. He found convincing evidence that climate change was not leading to higher rates of weather-related damages worldwide, once you correct for increasing population and wealth. He also helped convene major academic panels to survey the evidence and communicate the near-unanimous scientific consensus on this topic to policymakers. For his efforts, Pielke was subjected to a vicious, well-funded smear campaign backed by, among others, the Obama White House and leading Democratic congressmen, culminating in his decision in 2015 to quit the field.

A year ago, Pielke told the story to an audience at the University of Minnesota. His presentation was recently circulated on Twitter. With so much misinformation nowadays about supposed climate emergencies, it’s worth reviewing carefully.

Pielke’s public presentation begins with a recounting of his rise and fall in the field. As a young researcher in tropical storms and climate-related damages, he reached the pinnacle of the academic community and helped organize the so-called Hohenkammer Consensus Statement, named after the German town where 32 of the leading scientists in the field gathered in 2006 to sort out the evidence. They concluded that trends toward rising climate damages were mainly due to increased population and economic activity in the path of storms, that it was not currently possible to determine the portion of damages attributable to greenhouse gases, and that they didn’t expect that situation to change in the near future.

Shortly thereafter, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 2007 report, largely agreeing with the Hohenkammer Consensus, while cherry-picking one unpublished study (and highlighting it in the Summary for Policymakers) that suggested a link between greenhouse gases and storm-related damages. But the author of that study — who just happened to be the same IPCC lead author who injected it into the report — later admitted his claim was incorrect, and when the study was finally published, denied the connection.

In 2012, the IPCC Special Report on Extreme Weather came out and echoed the Hohenkammer Consensus, concluding that once you adjust for population growth and economic changes, there is no statistical connection between climate change and measures of weather-related damages. In 2013 Pielke testified to the United States Congress and relayed the IPCC findings. Shortly thereafter, Obama’s science advisor John Holdren accused him of misleading Congress and launched a lengthy but ill-informed attack on Pielke, which prompted congressional Democrats to open an investigation into Pielke’s sources of funding (which quickly fizzled amid benign conclusions). Meanwhile heavily funded left-wing groups succeeded in getting him fired from a popular internet news platform. In 2015 Pielke quit the climate field.

So where did the science end up?

In the second half of his talk, Pielke reviews the science as found in the most recent (2013) IPCC Assessment Report, the 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment, and the most up-to-date scientific data and literature. Nothing substantial has changed.

Globally there’s no clear evidence of trends and patterns in extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods. Some regions experience more, some less and some no trend. Limitations of data and inconsistencies in patterns prevent confident claims about global trends one way or another. There’s no trend in U.S. hurricane landfall frequency or intensity. If anything, the past 50 years has been relatively quiet. There’s no trend in hurricane-related flooding in the U.S. Nor is there evidence of an increase in floods globally. Since 1965, more parts of the U.S. have seen a decrease in flooding than have seen an increase. And from 1940 to today, flood damage as a percentage of GDP has fallen to less than 0.05 per cent per year from about 0.2 per cent.

And on it goes. There’s no trend in U.S. tornado damage (in fact, 2012 to 2017 was below average). There’s no trend in global droughts. Cold snaps in the U.S. are down but, unexpectedly, so are heatwaves.

The bottom line is there’s no solid connection between climate change and many major indicators of extreme weather that politicians keep talking about, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, rainfall and floods, despite Trudeau’s claims to the contrary. The continual claim of such links is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes. Powerful people get away with it because so few people know what the numbers show. Many scientists who know better remain silent. And the few who push back against the propaganda, such as Roger Pielke Jr., find themselves on the receiving end of abuse and career-threatening attacks, even though they have all the science in their corner. Something has gotten scary and extreme, but it isn’t the weather.

  • Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph and senior fellow of the Fraser Institute.

 

Climate Crazies Save The Planet—By Forcing D.C. Autos To Idle

John Nolte

A couple of dozen left-wing environmental groups in Washington, DC, claim they are saving the planet by lighting garbage on fire and forcing automobiles to sit idle.

According to the event’s own Facebook page, the goal is to “block key infrastructure to stop business-as-usual, bringing the whole city to a gridlocked standstill.”

But who are these people, really? Degenerate litterbugs determined to create even more pollution.

Thanks to these brave warriors fighting for their precious Mother Earth, thousands of cars are spewing tons of exhaust into the air that wouldn’t have if these enviro-crybabies had real jobs. Here’s an official rundown of all the traffic that’s been blocked.

And if that’s not bad enough, they’re lighting garbage on fire…

In the middle of a city street, those who claim to care about the environment have grabbed a garbage dumpster — filled with heaven only knows what — and indiscriminately lit it on fire.

So what we have here is yet another example of so-called environmentalists behaving in a way that proves that they themselves do not believe what they claim to believe.

Just as we saw Climate Change-alarmist Barack Obama spend $15 million to live a stone’s throw from the very same ocean he tells us will soon rise and wipe out his $15 million investment, we have these spoiled crybabies deliberately creating more pollution.

Listen, if you are sincerely worried about Climate Change, you do not spend weeks organizing a protest that will contribute to Climate Change, that worsens the problem.

And that’s the thing… If you watch what environmentalists actually do, you are watching people and organizations (including the media) that live in a way that proves they know it is all a hoax… these are people who live in the very coastal regions that are supposed to be underwater, young people who live their lives on energy-sucking iPhones (instead of reading a book), who clog our streets with automobiles, who fly on private jets, who consume more consumables than any generation in history, and who are willing to create tons of unnecessary pollution as a means to feel morally superior about, of all things, their stand on the environment.

Never forget the following… when it comes to predictions from climate alarmists, from the so-called “experts,” these frauds are 0-41.

Over the course of my lifetime, these lying grifters in the environmental and scientific community have not gotten one — not one! — alarmist prediction correct.

It is all a hoax. It is all the sheep’s clothing of socialism, and do you really want people who block traffic and light dumpsters on fire and terrorize young minds in charge of your life?

Greece, Slovenia among five EU countries to introduce new fossil fuel subsidies – report

Balkan Green Energy News

Five EU countries including the UK, Germany, Greece, Poland, and Slovenia are looking to introduce new fossil fuel subsidies by 2030, an analysis of the 28 Member States’ draft energy and climate plans (NECPs) has revealed.

In a new report, “Fossil fuel subsidies in draft EU National Energy and Climate Plans: Shortcomings and final call for action,” experts from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Friends of the Earth (FoE) Netherlands, and Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe have analyzed the EU Member States’ draft NECPs, which require governments to report on their fossil fuel subsidies and plans to phase them out, the CAN has said in a press release.

None of the EU Member States comprehensively report on their fossil fuel subsidies nor provide plans to phase them out

Despite long-standing commitments to ending fossil fuel subsidies, none of the EU Member States comprehensively report on their fossil fuel subsidies nor provide plans to phase them out.

The UK, Germany, Greece, Poland, and Slovenia even plan to introduce new fossil fuel subsidies, at a time of heightened awareness of the climate crisis and despite committing ten years ago to end such support, the CAN said.

Greece mentions that it will introduce a subsidy aimed at replacing diesel boilers with fossil gas-fired ones

For instance, Greece mentions that it will introduce a subsidy aimed at replacing diesel boilers with fossil gas-fired ones, and Poland intends to provide subsidies for underground gas storage and the use of liquified natural gas (LNG) for transport.

The authors of the report found that several of the NECPs made no mention of fossil fuel subsidies at all, despite previous research showing all EU governments are continuing to provide support to oil, gas or coal.

UK provides EUR 12 billion each year through tax breaks and budgetary transfers alone, more than any other EU state

The report finds that six Member States – Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Hungary, the Netherlands and the UK – claim no such subsidies exist in the country.

This is despite the European Commission previously finding all EU countries continue to provide some support to fossil fuels, with the UK providing EUR 12 billion each year through tax breaks and budgetary transfers alone, more than any other EU state, the CAN said.

“As part of the G20, EU governments committed to ending fossil fuel subsidies back in 2009. Ten years later, as the world is in the midst of a climate crisis, EU governments continue to provide huge sums of taxpayers’ money to fossil fuels, the single biggest cause of climate change,” lead author Laurie van der Burg, climate and energy researcher at FoE Netherlands, said.

The Competition Over How To Impoverish The American People Continues Among Democratic Candidates

It was back on June 4 that I posed the eternal question, “Will The Democratic Candidates Ever Notice That The Climate Change Thing Is Over?” That post noted that the Democratic candidates for President had begun a kind of bidding war over who could put forth the most extreme proposal to shackle the American economy in the name of climate salvatio n, while at the same time “out in the rest of the world” they were “laugh[ing] at this spectacle.” Among the data points cited in that post were that China was seeking reductions in the price of coal in order to spur consumption of electricity, and that in Australia a national election had just been lost by the party that made a principal issue out of its opposition to a huge new coal mine in Queensland.

In the three months since early June, things have only gotten sillier.

  • The Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 from the BP oil company came out. A summary of it in Forbes on June 28 noted: “Coal consumption in most of the developing world continues to grow. Asia Pacific increased consumption [in 2018] by the most overall, but its 2.5% growth rate lagged Africa’s (+3.9%) and Central and South America (+3.7%).”
  • The annual Google billionaires’ climate summit was held in Sicily at the beginning of August. From euronews: “114 private jets flew into the Italian Verdura Resort, according to the Italian press, and many of the elite guest list arrived in multi-million pound yachts. With stars like Leonardo DiCaprio, Barack Obama and Prince Harry in attendance, reports Jim Dobson at Forbes, they were hardly going to be hitch-hiking. . . .”
  • With the Australian election won by pro-development forces, the giant ($16.5 billion) Carmichael/Adani coal mine project in Queensland resumed its march toward final regulatory approval.
  • In late August former President Barack Obama plunked down just under $15 million for a beachfront mansion in Martha’s Vineyard, maybe 10 feet above mean high tide, revealing just what the ex-Pres really thinks of his own rhetoric about impending climate-induced sea-level rise.

So then, by now, at least some of the Democratic candidates must have noticed that the climate change thing is over, right? Don’t be ridiculous. In fact, back in June the bidding war of insane “climate” proposals was only getting started. Now, the run-up to last night’s CNN climate “town hall” provided the impetus for a round of new and ever-more-extreme bids, each one promising some new impoverishment of the American people in the name of appeasing the climate gods:

  • Cory Booker put out a plan on which he placed a $3 trillion price tag over 10 years. From a summary at Politico: “Booker’s campaign says his plan would ‘directly invest over $3 trillion dollars by 2030.’ That price tag includes $1.5 trillion for clean energy, energy storage, and electric vehicle technologies; $100 billion toward boosting existing sustainable agriculture practices; $400 billion to fund Moonshot Hubs in each state for research and development of new technologies; and $300 billion in climate resiliency and disaster relief.” In other words, $3 trillion taken away from American taxpayers, leaving them $3 trillion poorer, and then completely wasted on providing energy that could and would have been provided without any need for government spending at all.
  • Not to be out-”planned,” Elizabeth Warren also put out a pre-town-hall climate plan, also with a supposed $3 trillion price tag. And where is the money to go? “My Green Apollo plan to invest $400 billion over ten years in clean energy R&D will spur innovation . . . . My Green Manufacturing plan to invest $1.5 trillion over ten years in federal procurement of American-made clean energy products will fund the transition for federal, state, and local governments. . . . And my Green Marshall Plan will commit $100 billion to support the export of American-made clean energy products so that we can help other countries cut their emissions too. [And] I’ll commit an additional $1 trillion over 10 years . . . to subsidize the economic transition to clean and renewable electricity, zero emission vehicles, and green products for commercial and residential buildings.” Again, a program to accomplish nothing more than impoverishing Americans to the tune of $3 trillion.
  • But nobody out-bids Bernie Sanders. $3 trillion? That’s peanuts! Bernie put out a pre-town-hall plan with a price tag of over $16 trillion. It goes on interminably — 35 pages — with endless faux precision as to amounts of spending to accomplish meaningless or fantasy tasks. In this short blog post, I can only give some examples: $30 billion “to decrease the cost of solutions like batteries” . . . ; $500 billion “to research technologies to fully decarbonize industry” . . .; $150 billion “to fully decarbonize aviation and maritime shipping and transportation” (fossil fuel-free airplanes? nothing to it!) . . .; $200 billion to the “Green Climate Fund for the equitable transfer of renewable technologies, climate adaptation, and assistance in adopting sustainable energies” . . .; $40 billion for the “Climate Justice Resiliency Fund” . . .; $150 billion to build “resilient, affordable, publicly owned broadband infrastructure” . . . . That’s just scratching the surface, but you get the idea. It is not an exaggeration to say that every one of Bernie’s spending proposals is a total boondoggle or fairy tale that will accomplish nothing more than replacing more reliable and cheaper energy with more unreliable and expensive energy. The American people end up poorer by about one full year’s GDP, and that’s before you consider dealing with periodic blackouts and trying to fly in windmill-powered airplanes.

And then, the town hall. Of course, it was clear even before it started that every one of the ten participating candidates endorsed the idea that there is a “climate crisis” which however can be promptly solved by imposing sufficient punishment and impoverishment upon American citizens for their sin of prosperity. Reverend Pete Buttigieg may have expressed it best (from the summary of the town hall in the New York Times): “This is less and less about the planet as an abstract thing and more about specific people suffering specific harm because of what we’re doing right now. At least one way of talking about this is that it’s a kind of sin.” What is the atonement that must be imposed? All the candidates were on board with some form of higher prices for carbon-based fuels and/or carbon taxes or a cap-and-trade scheme. In other words, increase your price of electricity and gasoline by double, triple, quintuple, or whatever it takes until you can’t afford it any more and you stay home and freeze in the dark.

Or, end fracking. That has the explicit endorsement of at least Sanders, Warren, and (at the town hall) Harris, who said “There is no question that I am in favor of banning fracking.” The fracking revolution has brought the price of crude oil down from well over $100 per barrel in 2014 to about $55 today. That’s a saving of over $50 per barrel, or close to $400 billion per year for the 7.5 billion barrels of oil that we consume. Add in comparable savings for decline in the price of natural gas, and you could be approaching $1 trillion per year of enrichment of the American people from fracking. And that’s before you count the accompanying decline in influence of all the most malign actors on the world stage, from Russia to Iran to Saudi Arabia.

I’m old enough that I can remember when political candidates thought that it was their job to propose policies that would enhance the prosperity of the people, let alone to make the world a safer place. Actually, Donald Trump still does think that. When did all the Democratic candidates go so completely insane?