Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Turning Up the Heat on Climate Alarmism

Turning Up the Heat on Climate Alarmism

Petitions and videos point out the fallacies of climate change theories and eco-activist tactics.

About a week ago, Aleister reported Secretary of State John Kerry’s assertion that air conditioners and refrigerators pose as big a threat to “life on the planet” as terrorism.

Americans, taking Kerry at his word, and are now petitioning the State Department to remove their air conditioning.

WHEREAS, Secretary of State John F. Kerry has suggested that air conditioners are as big a threat as ISIS, and

WHEREAS, it is the duty of our elected and appointed government officials to lead by example,

THEREFORE, we call upon the U.S. Department of State to remove air conditioning from all property that the Department owns, rents, or otherwise employs, including but not limited to embassies, consulates, office buildings, etc., all vehicles owned and/or operated by the Department, and any other property, real or movable, owned, rented, or otherwise employed by the Department.

So far, over 40,000 people have signed!

Additionally, Prager University’s latest video also tackles climate alarmism. Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, breaks down the facts about the environment and shows why the reality of climate change may be very different from what you hear in the media.

Lomborg takes an in-depth look at the numbers and statics behind major storm events, and shows that the frequency of hurricanes and typhoons have been decreasing in number and severity over the last few decades. Additionally, there are fewer deaths from weather-related conditions in first world countries than in less development nations.

The Danish authoractually lead to fewer storm deaths…which is the goal eco-activists say they want.

Lomborg is a long-time warrior for sensible science. He became internationally known for his best-selling book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, in which he argues that many of the costly measures promoted by elite policy makers to meet the challenges of global warming will ultimately have minimal impact on the world’s climate.

However, the impact on the political climate once environmental diktats are enacted and the monies to fund them are extracted is quite significant.

(Featured image from change.org petition).

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Lomborg is a warmunist. He criticizes other warmunists for believing in AGW for, he believes, the wrong reasons.

Make them live up to their own rules and rhetoric.

Name 1 low lying island, atoll, peninsula, or other land extension into an ocean that has disappeared under the water due to rising sea levels. 1.

We are in an era where far to many people insist on clinging to their own stupidly for whatever reasons. I have no idea what can be done about that. You see it everywhere. They have no viable options but they’ll by God grasp their own stupidly to their chests as if their life depended on it.

They end up getting their way because they’re persistent. People get tired of screwing with them. People walk away & give them their way. All that does is drag everyone else under when they go under.

It’s happening across the board. It even infests this site at times. God help us all.

Both Al Gore & John Kerry came very close to being elected president. Barrack Obama has been president for 8 years. Hillary Clinton may very well be elected president.

And some people think that’s a viable option. They believe it would open the doors to a golden age where their beliefs will finally prevail. Even though they have no coherent & consistent agreement of what their beliefs are. Even though it’s never happened as they envision in the past.

I don’t understand that, I can’t explain it, I have no idea how it could possibly happen. And so we consistently end up with a variation of what we’ve had for the last 50 years.

And I’m the one every damned one of them see as insane.

The Russians caught on to the environmentalists long before we did, calling them “watermelons,” green on the outside, red on the inside.

Environmentalists reject actual science, and actual scientists, especially experimental scientists, who know the meaning of the term “experimental error.” They have a horrifying record, that has resulted in, among many other sins, huge areas of burned American national forests, and the dumping of alleged pollutants in the ocean to “bring attention” to the invisible “garbage patch” in the Pacific. The picture I had in mind, where a few bits of garbage would bound up with a LOT of straw to make a fake, very small “island,” has been removed from easy search. This is some progress.

http://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2014/07/03/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-hoax-n1858418

Meanwhile, Scripps Institute in San Diego remains completely undeterred in its publication of one horror story after another about “catastrophic” global warning. These are the people who sent out press releases saying that their new, fancy thermometers were going to reduce the error in temperature measurements by increasing the accuracy of the thermometers to a thousandth of a degree.

These people perform no experiments, and have no apparent awareness that the error in environmental measurements comes from the system itself, not the instruments. This, despite living in a coastal area that reports four daily temperature ranges, for a total swing of nearly 50 degrees Fahrenheit, every single day. And yet, they publish story after story of the wildest speculation based on very small differences.

As scientists, they are good photographers.

I remember, back in the 60s, of the new Ice Age scare. So called scientists holding up graphs showing how particulate matter from pollution was blocking sunlight and would cause the earth to cool down.
Now the sons and daughters of these same “experts” are crying about global warming.
I predict that the grandkids will be all panicky about climate stagnation.

    GeorgeRoberts in reply to Luapious. | August 1, 2016 at 10:46 pm

    The great global cooling myth:
    “But a new article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society challenges the idea of a ‘global cooling ’ consensus. Thomas Peterson of NOAA teamed with William Connolley of the British Antarctic survey and science reporter John Fleck to create a survey of peer-reviewed climate literature from the 1970s. Looking at every paper that dealt with climate change projections or an aspect of climate forcing from 1965 to 1979, they were able to assess the ‘trends’ in the literature. They found that only 7 of the 71 total papers surveyed predicted global cooling. The vast majority (44) actually predicted that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide could lead to global warming.”

    “Of course, there was a small group of scientists in a new field pointing to the inevitability of the coming ice age – the newly minted palaeoclimatologists. However, as Peterson and colleagues point out, they were speaking on timescales of tens of thousands of years, rather than anything that could occur in a child or grandchild’s lifetime.”
    http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/10/the_great_global_cooling_myth.html

So what’s the first thing I see after signing this worthy petition? A notice for a petition to “Save the Monarch Butterfly from Extinction”. Because Climate Change.

Are Monarch Butterflies in danger? How would I know who to believe?

These people have no idea how much damage they’re doing to the environment by eliminating their own credibility.

Oddly enough, fewer and less powerful hurricanes and cyclones are exactly what one should expect from climate warming. Warming was predicted to affect the mid-latitudes more than the tropics. Because it’s the heat difference between the mid-latitudes and the tropics that powers these storms, as that difference decreases, storms should become less frequent and less powerful. Storms redistribute heat – if there’s nowhere for the heat to go, or less of a gradient for the heat to traverse, the heat tends not to move, or to move with less power.

How can this be? Let’s imagine climate change is causing “global warming” (leaving aside for the moment what, exactly, is causing the change). It is simply not possible to sell it as a threat if all of its impacts are not dire, which is to say if some of its impacts are actually beneficial (such as a reduction in powerful storms). So the warmists could never sell the threat of global warming if they told the truth about it. After all, the earth has been warming since the last ice age, and we think it’s “just right”. Seems the climate changed for the better (as far as we’re concerned) during a major warming period! How do we know it’s as good as it’s going to get right now and who made that determination?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend