Trevor Noah Pushes Hype – John Stossel

From the video description:

People are wrong to blame man for hurricanes.

Comedian Trevor Noah asks “how many once-in-a-lifetime events is it gonna take… for everyone to admit that maybe man-made climate change is real”?

Excuse me, Trevor, sneaking “man-made” into the sentence doesn’t make it true. The earth is warming, and man probably plays some part, but the earth was warming before factories and cars were even built.

The Washington Post ran the headline, “Irma and Harvey should kill any doubt that climate change is real.” But that’s absurd.

Of course climate change is real. Climate CHANGES. Always has, always will. For the past 300 years, since what’s called the “little ice age,” the globe has warmed about 3 degrees.

We humans are just not that important. Even if the Paris accord were honored by everyone, (it wouldn’t be) its PROPONENTS admit it would only have slowed warming by maybe… 2 degrees… over a century.

It does us no good to scream “man-made” every time there’s a terrible hurricane.

Let’s focus on helping the victims.

Hurricane Harvey #FakeClimateNews

Here are some stories on these previous storms:

A Hurricane Worse Than Harvey Hit Texas, Before Americans Drove Cars

…While media outlets are suggesting climate change is to blame for exacerbating Hurricane Harvey’s conditions, a much worse hurricane hit Texas more than a century ago—before Americans drove to work.

The media have been quick to blame climate change for the devastation, which as of this writing has resulted in 30 flood-related deaths.

Politico magazine declared “Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like.” The Washington Postattempted to blame President Donald Trump’s “climate skepticism” for more storms in the future. The Guardian said, “It’s a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly.” NPR reported the storm’s size and impact “points to climate change.”

Environmentalists have often told Americans to become vegans to stop climate change, to “fly less, drive less, and eat less meat” and have fewer children to save the planet.

There was a time when Americans were not flying, and hardly any were driving. And the storms were worse.

The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was the most deadly natural disaster in American history, which led to an estimated 8,000 deaths. Kevin Murnane writing for Forbes notes the many similarities between Galveston and Harvey, including that both were category 4 hurricanes when they hit landfall off the Texas coast. Winds from Galveston were faster, at 145 mph compared with Harvey’s 130 mph, and its height of the storm surge was 15.7 feet, also higher than Harvey.

[…..]

Many media reports blaming climate change for Harvey used Michael E. Mann, a professor at Penn State and author of the controversial global warming “hockey stick” graph, as their source. Mann’s graph was widely used in the late 1990s to connect human activities to global warming.

Mann was later found to have “exaggerated” the impact of global warming in the graph by using “inappropriate methods.”

While careful to say climate change did not directly cause Harvey, the Washington Post said it “exacerbated the storm conditions,” linking to a piece written by Mann in the Guardian, calling it a “fact” that climate change made Harvey worse.

“Human-caused warming is penetrating down into the ocean,” Mann claims. “It’s creating deeper layers of warm water in the Gulf and elsewhere.”

“Harvey was almost certainly more intense than it would have been in the absence of human-caused warming, which means stronger winds, more wind damage and a larger storm surge,” he added.

Mann ignores the fact that the Galveston Hurricane had a storm surge of 15.7 feet, higher than the 7- to 12-feet storm surges seen from Harvey.

Man-made global warming is mainly attributed to carbon emissions, from industry and from transportation. There were only 8,000 vehicles in the entire country in 1900. Only 663 million tons of CO2 were emitted, compared with 5.333 billion today….

See also:

  • How Climate Change Is Being Blamed For Harvey After A Dozen Years Without A Major Hurricane (WASHINGTON TIMES)
  • Michael Mann’s claims that Harvey was caused by global warming are destroyed by an operational meteorologist (WUWT)

Take particular note of the four records in Texas:

  • Galveston 1871 – 3.95” in 15 minutes
  • Woodward Ranch 1935 – 15.0” in 2 hours
  • Thrall 1921 – 36.4” in 18 hours
  • Alvin 1979 – 43” in 24 hours

Storm Harvey never got anywhere near these sort of totals. And we find a very similar picture when we review global records, with the most recent record being as long ago as 1980.

(NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT)

JOE BASTARDI notes that Harvey is tied for 14th:

Perhaps a more intriguing question is how did its companion, disturbance 92L, come all the way across the Atlantic in a classic arcing path through Florida and up the East Coast *and fail to develop? What does that tell us?

There is much being made of Harvey and climate change. Meteorologically, as far as the intensity of the storm, let’s see where it ranks among landfalling Category 4 or 5 storms.

It’s tied for 14th. Look at the storm above it, Hazel. Now, let me ask you: Which is the more extreme as far as deviation from normal with pressure, which is a good metric to objectively evaluate how extreme a tropical cyclone is — a storm that hit in mid October in North Carolina, or one that hits on the central Texas Gulf Coast in late August? Let’s also look at Harvey in relation to other hurricanes in Texas. Behind it is the 1915 Galveston hurricane. That is the lesser of the two evils, because of 13th right above Harvey is the 1900 Galveston hurricane that killed 6,000-12,000 people. And right above that one is the Freeport hurricane of 1932. Notice when these are occurring. Then there is the 1916 cyclone in Texas — just a year after the 1915 Galveston hurricane — and Carla in 1961. Again, this all occurred over 50 years ago. Then there is the 1886 Indianola hurricane.Tthey are all hitting in the area that Harvey hit. So the question becomes, if those same storms, almost all stronger, from many years ago hit today, would they be a sign of climate change? Why is Harvey — and not to downplay the storm, but it was one of many and less intense than most — a sign the climate is changing, but these other storms would not be?

[…..]

So if the 1935 Labor Day hurricane — the most powerful storm to be recorded hitting the US, a storm that went from a tropical storm to a Cat 5 in 36 hours — occurs again, why would it be climate change now, but not then?

If the 1938 storm comes back — a storm that took down two billion board feet of trees in New England, had major river floods in western New England, flooded Providence with 13 feet of water in a storm surge, and had a wind gust of 186 mph at blue hill — occurs again, why would it be climate change now, but not then?

[…..]

I can go on and on with countless storms.

The answer: It is nature doing what nature does. And coming out after the storm and claiming it’s something else reveals either ignorance of the past or, if you do know, an agenda based on deception. If I saw the people commenting on this now making a preseason forecast, or even five days before when the obsession was the eclipse, then perhaps I would be more open to those ideas. But telling people why after the what is Monday morning agenda-based quarterbacking. Perhaps that is the lesson of Harvey.

True Heroes of History vs. Faux Pop-Culture Heroes

In an age of pseudo political “science” and a waning of an understanding of true heroism in the face of evil — mainly due to a lessening of what evil “is.” I previously wrote about this true hero that had her Nobel Prize swiped from her by the fraud known as Al Gore. Maybe he believes that “global warming” is the #1 issue facing humanity in order anesthetize his understanding that Irena Sendler is a TRUE hero of humanity — who fought real evil. Al Gore’s predictions have failed to come to pass (in Old Testament times he very well may have been put to death), and the following graph shows how fleeting political and environmental heroes can be in the face of real one… like IRENA SENDLER, who should have won the Nobel Peace Prize that year instead of Gore.

JOE BASTARDI finishes off a post (after the above graph) by saying this:

….But there is more to me. Let me lay my cards on the table. Over the years I have become a big fan of Israel. I am not Jewish, but I find the history of the Jewish people remarkable, if not astonishing. What happened in World War II cannot be put into words. Here we have a case of someone with actions far beyond the fantasy of a forecast of tomorrow that took a back seat to … what? Now let me ask you this: If you were in the running for the Nobel Prize against Irena, would you even accept the award understanding that what you are doing involves an agenda that is relying on future events versus actual heroic accomplishments in one of mankind’s darkest hours? Who would do that?

Even more distressing is the idea that you actually equate your cause with causes that have real value for the people who are involved in it. For instance, equating “climate change” with racial equality. That is a flat-out insult to that cause. Or labeling people who disagree with you as “deniers” or “Nazis,” which shows total disrespect for people who can never forget what happened in one of man’s darkest hours. Shame on you. Shame on you trying to equate your straw man argument with real problems that people bled and died for and the problems the world faces today. Shame on the people who think that the heroism of the past is less worthy than fantasy-driven utopian agendas in the future.

I am glad Al Gore has his new movie out. It reminded me of Irena Sendler, who he beat out for the Nobel Prize. Because it gave me a chance to write on someone whose story should be known and once again expose someone who has gotten rich off something that can’t hold a candle to the bravery of people in the era that Irena Sendler exemplified.

Is this an example of the Left relying on old white, wealthy males to guide society rather than lauding women of history?

Climate-Change

(Prager U. presentations below – JUMP)


PRAGER UNIVERSITY VIDEOS


(Above) The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won’t do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer–except politicians and environmentalists. Bjorn Lomborg explains.

CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT’S SO ALARMING? || Are droughts, hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters getting stronger and more frequent? Are carbon dioxide emissions, global temperatures and sea levels putting us on a path for climate catastrophe? 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.

DO 97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS REALLY AGREE? || Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.

FOSSIL FUELS: THE GREENEST ENERGY ||  To make earth cleaner, greener and safer, which energy sources should humanity rely on? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains how modern societies have cleaned up our water, air and streets using the very energy sources you may not have expected–oil, coal and natural gas.

CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT DO SCIENTISTS SAY? || Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

ARE ELECTRIC CARS REALLY GREEN? || Are electric cars greener than conventional gasoline cars? If so, how much greener? What about the CO2 emissions produced during electric cars’ production? And where does the electricity that powers electric cars come from? Environmental economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, examines how environmentally friendly electric cars really are.

IS CLIMATE CHANGE OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM? || Is man-made climate change our biggest problem? Are the wildfires, droughts and hurricanes we see on the news an omen of even worse things to come? The United Nations and many political leaders think so and want to spend trillions of tax dollars to reverse the warming trend. Are they right? Will the enormous cost justify the gain? Economist Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explains the key issues and reaches some sobering conclusions.

CAN WE RELY ON WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY? || Is green energy, particularly wind and solar energy, the solution to our climate and energy problems? Or should we be relying on things like natural gas, nuclear energy, and even coal for our energy needs and environmental obligations? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains. Learn about Alex Epstein’s book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

WHY I LEFT GREENPEACE || Patrick Moore explains why he helped to create Greenpeace, and why he decided to leave it. What began as a mission to improve the environment for the sake of humanity became a political movement in which humanity became the villain and hard science a non-issue.

WHAT THEY HAVEN’T TOLD YOU ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE || Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.

THE TRUTH ABOUT CO2 || Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate.

TREES ARE THE ANSWER || Everybody loves trees, so why are they so controversial? Patrick Moore untangles the knotty issue of “deforestation” and shows how, from a purely environmental perspective, it is possible and desirable to grow more trees and use more wood products.

WHY YOU SHOULD LOVE FOSSIL FUEL || Every year on Earth Day we learn how bad humanity’s economic development is for the health of the planet. But maybe this is the wrong message. Maybe we should instead reflect on how human progress, even use of fossil fuels, has made our environment cleaner and healthier. Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains.

IS ORGANIC FOOD WORTH THE COST? || Are organic foods really healthier than non-organic foods? Are they better for animals? Are they better for the environment? Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explains.

CAN A DESERT NATION SOLVE THE WORLD’S WATER SHORTAGE? || From California to Africa, we are facing a global water shortage. But one tiny country, in the middle of a desert, has found remarkable solutions. Which country? And can we replicate its success? Businessman and New York Times bestselling author Seth Siegel explains. (SEE ALSO: “Do You Pass the Israel Test?“)

Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Deconstructs Global Warming

Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever’s speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015. Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.

Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is “Dead Wrong”. This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates.

NYT’s Executive Editor Admits Left Doesn’t Want Thoughtful Discussion

Larry Elder notes Dean Baquet’s, executive editor of the New York Times (the top position in the newsroom), admission to the Left not wanting to hear thoughtful responses to issues from a counter viewpoint. Here is NEWSBUSTERS comments on the issue:

Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller harped on something New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet said Wednesday at the Recode conference in California. In discussing the Times editorial pages — and the liberal reader anger over signing up right-leaning columnist Bret Stephens from The Wall Street Journal — he used the royal “We” in describing the Left, until he caught himself, and “I’m not ‘we,’ I’m a journalist.”

Recode’s Peter Kafka brought up a New York magazine article by Rebecca Traister reporting Hillary Clinton being angry about the Stephens hire: “Why… would… you… do… that?…66 million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people. So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them!”

Baquet insisted Stephens is not a “climate denier,” but that he thinks climate activists have turned their crusade into a “religion that brooks no disagreement.” Baquet liked having a “thoughtful voice” like this in the paper. Kafka shot back “One of the arguments that people have is, look, there’s plenty of places to find news from ‘climate skeptics,’ if you want to call them that,” and if the Times wanted to stand for something, they should “embrace the left side” of the spectrum. Baquet insisted the editorial pages were meant to have more than one side.

Here is the link to the other articles referenced in the above audio:

THE CIVIL HERETIC
CLIMATE OF COMPLETE CERTAINTY

The Paris Agreement B.S. (Updated)

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” ~ TRUMP

(ABOVE) The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year, and climate activists say it will save the planet. The truth? It won’t do anything for the planet, but it will make everyone poorer–except politicians and environmentalists. Bjorn Lomborg explains.

I Love Capitalism over at GAY PATRIOT notes quickly this:

Yesterday I wrote a lot of text on this. Thanks to all commentators who made helpful additions.

Today I want to give the short version. With short sentences. For lefties.

  • The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. It let China, India and Russia do what they wanted. Oooh, Russia! Bad!!!!1!! Right?
  • The Paris Agreement did not control CO2. Even the UN scienticians agreed that it made almost no difference to their Global Warming projected temperatures.
  • The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to wreck its workers’ lives and futures.
  • The Paris Agreement was a krazy-bad deal. It made the U.S. almost the only leading country that has to give away tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, to pay Third World kleptocrats to hold back their countries.

Hey lefties: If you didn’t know these things, I’m sorry you’re so gullible…

(read it all)

Here is an excellent article via IBD:

The Paris Climate Deal Was A ‘Fraud’ And A ‘Sham’ … Until Trump Decided To Ditch It

Shouldn’t environmentalists be celebrating the fact that President Trump decided to withdraw from the Paris climate-change agreement? After all, when it was signed, many of them called it a fraud, or worse.

The reaction to Trump’s announcement was ferocious.

Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer said Trump is “committing a traitorous act of war against the American people.”

John Kerry declared that Trump’s decision “will rightly be remembered as one of the most shameful any president has made.”

The ACLU said that dropping out of the Paris agreement is “a massive step back for racial justice and an assault on communities of color across the U.S.”

These are the more polite responses.

Yet it was only a little more than a year ago that climate scientists and environmentalists were viciously attacking the Paris agreement itself. The goals were too low to make a difference. There was nothing binding any of the signatories to live up to their promises, and no enforcement mechanism if they didn’t. It just kicked the can down the road.

James Hansen, the undisputed hero of the climate-change movement, called the Paris deal “a fraud really, a fake. … It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises.”

A joint letter signed by nearly a dozen top climate scientists said the agreement suffered “deadly flaws lying just beneath its veneer of success.” These scientists complained that the agreement could actually be counterproductive, since it gave the impression that global warming was being dealt with when in fact it wasn’t.

A study in the peer-reviewed journal Global Policy said that even if every country lived up to its CO2 emission reduction promises through 2030, the Paris deal would “likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.”

“Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades,” the study concluded.

Kevin Anderson, a climate-change professor at the University of Manchester told the London Independent that the Paris deal was “worse than inept” and that it “risks locking in failure.”

Friends of the Earth International labeled it “a sham of a deal” that will “fail to deliver.”…

(read it all)

By 2015 New York Would Be Underwater – ABC (Updated)

[I will] say this much for the climate commies who are squawking so loudly about the end of the world. At least they aren’t dumb enough to believe their own lies. If they were, they would live very differently. Matt Walsh will start believing that they believe what they insist we believe when they start living like the Amish:

I can only imagine how I would react if I actually believed that the extinction of all mankind was imminent, and my lifestyle was directly contributing to it. At a minimum, I would not drive a car anymore. Ever. At all. I would ditch electricity. I wouldn’t eat any kind of meat. I wouldn’t buy mass made consumer products. I wouldn’t give my money to any company that sells items made in factories with giant smokestacks. Those smokestacks are literally killing people. How could you continue shopping like everything is normal?

A great couple of paragraphs are posted by MOONBATTERY after the above… and then this:

…And if those who advocate it don’t believe it, why should the rest of us take so much as a second out of our lives to consider its merits?

The answer: because 97% of scientists agree, quack quack quack.

(The below is RELATED to: UCSB Students Note Rising Sea Levels)

And this is a great transition because we can tell that those who have the funds to put their money where their mouth is (the wealthy) and preach about this the most (Manhattanites and the Entertainment industry) do not believe their own rhetoric. Why? See below…

  • “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the National Sierra Club. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Trump melted the ice caps. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” (Luke 17.26-27, with a wee bit of the fear-mongering changed)

(Gateway Pundit): Seven years ago ABC News warned viewers that New York City will be under water by 2015 due to global warming.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, “It’s June 8th, 2015.”

“One carton of milk is $12.99.” (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: “Gas reached over $9 a gallon.”

The only way food would be soo high is if Obama’s war on affordable energy works it’s course! How come Manhattan property is through the roof!

(Breitbart) In 2006, on NBC’s Today Show, former-Vice President Al Gore predicted that Manhattan would be flooded in “15 to 20 years.” He added, “In fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.” Just 3 years ago, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority predicted that within the next ten years, “Irene-like storms of the future would put a third of New York City streets under water and flood many of the tunnels leading into Manhattan in under an hour because of climate change[.]”

By hook or crook, through super storms or glacier melt, Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change has doomed the Big Apple.

What we have here are two of the most respected environmental voices among the political Left — Gore and the government —  warning of dire flooding hitting Manhattan within the next 10 years. And at least according to their activism, the predominantly left-wing, Global Warming believers of Manhattan are listening. Furious about the lack of wealth-distribution that will save the planet and their small island, just 6 months ago, more than 300,000 took to the streets of Manhattan to protest.

And yet, a funny thing is happening in the real world of the free market. Manhattan might be the elite media/entertainment/intellectual hub of the cult of Global Warming, but where the rubber meets the bottom line, the cult obviously doesn’t really believe in its own propaganda. If they did, Manhattan real estate prices would be collapsing, not hitting record highs as they currently are.

If people truly believe an area is going to be flooded as soon as in the next decade, those same people would be selling off their real estate. Not just to escape but to sell before conditions worsened and real estate prices bottomed out further. As the deadline loomed closer, prices would decrease further.

What’s happening, though, is the exact opposite.

The average Manhattan home price is now over $1.7 million. With some apartment prices now breaking nine figures, it’s time to take a look at the booming New York real estate market and explore where middle class families fit into the picture.

At 157 West 57th Street, the most expensive New York home sale was just completed with the penthouse of this new building going for over $100 million.

Howard Lorber, the chairman of Douglas Elliman, the city’s largest residential brokerage, told me that there is no sign of this trend slowing down. He called New York a safe place for people around the world to invest in real estate.

Maybe what’s happening is that Manhattan’s left-wing Global Warming believers are suckering right-wing Climate Deniers into buying doomed real estate at record prices?

…there’s more…


$$ UPDATED INFO $$


Manhattan apartment sales prices top $2 million for first time: survey

(Dec 14th, 2016)

The average sales price of an apartment in Manhattan is expected to top $2 million this year for the first time, but prices are seen leveling off in 2017 after nearly doubling over the past decade.

Prices were pushed higher by a jump in sales of condominiums valued at $10 million or more, which skewed results, CityRealty, a real estate listings and data website for New York City, said on Wednesday.

The opening of 432 Park Avenue, a 96-story tower marketed by developers as the tallest residential building in the Americas, had an outsized effect on prices, said CityRealty research director Gabby Warshawer.

Fifty-two of the 75 units sold at the tower overlooking Central Park fetched more than $10 million, she said. Some units are priced at more than $40 million.

An increase in new developments and a rise in the price of existing units also lifted the market, Warshawer said.

[….]

The median price for apartments, or the middle of all sales considered, also set a record at $1.2 million, up from $1.1 million last year, in the area examined.

A decade ago, the price of new condo units was almost the same as existing ones, but prices at new developments since 2008 have outpaced those of existing ones.

The average price for an apartment in the area of Manhattan examined was 91 percent higher than in 2006, CityRealty said.

Prices have climbed every year since 2011 but are expected to flatline next year. A lack of expensive, large new buildings will act to keep prices in check in 2017, CityRealty said.

 

The “Expert” Fallacy ~ Global Warming

A great response to a mushy response to AGW skeptics, here is the typical charge:

Imagine your doctor tells you that you have dangerously high cholesterol and blocked arteries. She says you may drop dead soon. [Note: Based on comments/questions, I should clarify here. By “doctor”, I mean the entire medical establishment. So imagine you got not just a “second opinion,” but 100 opinions…and 97 say the same thing].You might have four basic reactions based on two dimensions, belief (or doubt) in the basic facts/science, and whether you commit to action or delay.

Here are some of the responses — in part — from WATTS UP WITH THAT:

1. A medical doctor is a highly-qualified professional.  Medical doctors must successfully complete a medical school, spend 3-7 years in residency actually treating patients, and be licensed by a state medical board composed mostly of proven doctors.

In contrast, anybody can call him- or herself a scientist and speak on behalf of science.  There are no licensing or certification requirements….

[….]

2. A medical doctor is accountable.  A doctor would lose patients or be fired if his or her advice isn’t sound.  A doctor can also be sued by a dissatisfied patient.  In a number of cases, doctors have been indicted.

A putative climate scientist can hardly even be criticized….

[….]

3. Patients have direct bidirectional communication with their doctor.  “Direct” means that the patient usually speaks face-to-face with the doctor.  “Bi-directional” means the patient can ask the doctor questions and get answers.  Very few accept TV personalities’ talk as real medical advice.

The so-called “climate science” is usually communicated to the public in third person point of view like “The scientists say that …”, “Majority of peer-reviewed articles conclude …”, and even “Models show that …” These used to be typical introductory clauses before statements about alleged climate dangers…..

[….]

4. One takes initiative to seek a doctor, rather than the other way around. Any unsolicited email offering a medical procedure or a wonder pill is sent straight to the spam folder.

But climate alarmism promoters always come unsolicited! …

[….]

5. Doctors do not demand patients to trust them.  They earn their trust.

Climate alarmists demand trust because they have earned mistrust.

I would like to finish by paraphrasing Edmund Burke:

  • Alleged science looks for defense from Washington when it fails in the real world.

Ann McElhinney Destroys SJW

YOUNG CONSERVATIVES HAT-TIP:

Temple University Students for Intellectual Freedom (TUSIF) hosted Ann McElhinney, the Irish documentary film maker behind the documentary film “Not Evil, Just Wrong”, which debunks myths surrounding global warming. Also speaking on the panel were Jennifer Stefano, Director of Energy and Labor Policy, AFP-PA; and Tom Pyle, President, American Energy Alliance. The event concluded with an always-entertaining, outrageous Q&A session. Entertainment provided by the Temple U. Socialists-Feminists, radical leftists. AFP chose to tour Pennsylvania due to the state’s history in the energy field and their vast resources of shale, crude oil, and coal. This is an opportunity for students to learn about how the left’s radical environmentalist agenda is harming America.

Stevin Koonin ~ Former Energy Dept. Undersecretary (Updated)

(Above video description) Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on how bureaucrats spin scientific data.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.

“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in the decades before that,” he said.

(The Daily Wire)

Here is Mark Levin on the above interview:

  • “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy,” writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin

Via The Wall Street Journal:

The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don’t know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth’s global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?” Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here’s the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

[….]

We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences.

[….]

Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

…READ IT ALL…

Myth #2: America Is The World’s Leading Threat To The Environment

A series of 5-myths via Daniel Flynn’s excellent book — Machiavelli said, “One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.”


MYTH #2: AMERICA IS THE WORLD’S LEADING THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT

INVENTING “FACTS” TO promote one’s political objectives is certainly not a phenomenon confined to feminists. Radical en vironmentalists also willingly twist the facts when attempting to promote a political agenda. The more politicized the agenda, the deeper their belief seems to become.

  • Environmentalists claim that humans have depleted the forests for their own selfish motives. Some of the more extreme green activists implant steel spikes in trees to injure loggers or place themselves in trees to prevent timber harvesting. Reforestation and advances in *­fighting technology, however, have ensured that Amer­ica has more trees now than at any point in over 100 years. As John Tierney points out in a New York Times Magazine article, “Yes, a lot of trees have been cut down to make today’s newspaper. But even more trees will probably be planted in their place. America’s supply of timber has been increasing for decades, and the nation’s forests have three times the amount of wood today than in 1920.”
  • In his best-selling book Earth in the Balance, then senator Al Gore commented, “We now know that [automobiles’] cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront.” Do we really “know” this? Cars av­eraged around 14 miles to the gallon in the mid-1970s. Today, they average more than 30 miles to the gallon. Automobiles rolling off the assembly line today emit 99% fewer hydrocarbons, 96% less carbon monoxide, and 90% less nitrogen oxide than cars hitting the street 30 years ago. Things are getting better, not worse.
  • “The battle to feed humanity is over,” Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb famously proclaimed in 1968. “In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” The Population Bomb prophesied that “a minimum of ten mil­lion people, most of them children, will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But this is a mere handful compared to the number that will be starving before the end of the century. And it is now too late to take action to save many of those people.” Needless to say, this modern-day Malthus erred. Since intellectuals and jour­nalists deemed Ehrlich’s ideology correct and cared less about his incorrect facts, the Stanford professor has be­come a media darling, and his book has gone on to sell millions of copies.

Perhaps the greatest myth advanced by environmentalists posits that the primary villain responsible for the planet’s eco­logical problems is the United States. An anticapitalist protes­tor curiously described the September 11 terrorists as “lashing out against the American foreign policy, which is basically to protect the American lifestyle, which is an unsustainable life­style…. We will never have peace until everybody basically lives the same way.” Apart from the disingenuousness of pro­jecting one’s personal ideology on the terrorists, does the rest of the world demand that we adopt their standard of living, or do they instead envy our prosperous position? “Economically, we can only hope that other nations will never achieve our stan­dard of living, for if they did, the earth would become a desert,” author James Loewen opines, proposing that nations regress to “zero economic growth” even if it takes an international body to enforce the goal.

Yet it is not technology or the United States that threatens the environment. Americans breathe cleaner air and drink cleaner water than almost anyone. The World Resources Insti­tute’s rankings of the world’s most polluted cities list no U.S. metropolises in its top tier. In fact, China boasts 9 out of the 10 most polluted cities. An Asian magazine’s study listed Beijing, Mexico City, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, and Hong Kong as the globe’s most environmentally inhospitable cities. Pollution in many other countries is far worse than it is in the United States. An inconvenient fact confronts environmentalists who are quick to blame America for ecological ills: It is not the United States that pollutes Lanzhou, New Delhi, or Mexico City.

The United States is a more environmentally considerate nation than it was just a few decades ago. The air is cleaner. Of the six air pollutants that the Environmental Protection Agency began tracking in 1975, all six are down significantly today. Some of the pollutants measure a mere fraction of their former presence. Lead stands at less than a tenth of its 1975 level, while carbon monoxide has slipped to less than half its 1975 level. The amount of forest acreage has risen dramatically. The U.S. Forest Service reports that the number of new trees has ex­ceeded the number of trees cut down in every year since 1952. The water is cleaner. Scenes such as the Cuyahoga River aflame are a distant memory. Now people actually fish in the Cuya­hoga. The United States compares favorably to other indus­trialized nations in the cleanliness of its waterways. The Mississippi, for instance, is cleaner than the Seine, the Rhine, and the Thames. Would anyone prefer drinking from the Ganges or the Volga than from the Colorado?

New Republic writer Gregg Easterbrook points out that we have much to cheer about regarding the environment. Indus­trial toxic emissions declined by nearly half from 1988 to 1996, several formerly endangered species now thrive, the govern­ment and the private sector cleaned up a third of all Superfund toxic waste sites, and forest area continues to expand. He fur­ther states,

Twenty-five years ago, only one-third of America’s lakes and rivers were safe for fishing and swimming; today two-thirds are, and the proportion continues to rise. Annual wetlands loss has fallen by 80 percent in the same period, while soil losses to agricultural runoff have been almost cut in half. Total Ameri­can water consumption has declined nine percent in the past 15 years, even as population expands, especially in the arid South­west. Since 1970, smog has declined by about a third, even as the number of cars has increased by half; acid rain has fallen by 40 percent; airborne soot particles are down 69 percent, which is why big cities have blue skies again; carbon monoxide or “winter smog” is down 31 percent; airborne lead, a poison, is down 98 percent. Emissions of CFCs, which deplete strato­spheric ozone, have all but ended.

Technological innovation has at times harmed the environ­ment. Today, technology serves the environment. Pesticides and genetic engineering have increased crop yields, feeding the millions of people the environmentalists warned would surely starve by now. Sewage treatment is so advanced that the same water some Californians flush down their toilets eventually re­cycles back clean through their faucets. Energy now burns cleaner, with technological advances allowing some alternative energy sources to cause no pollution at all. Yet the naysayers persist. Doomsday prophet Paul Ehrlich and his wife, Anne, maintain, “Most people do not recognize that, at least in rich nations, economic growth is the disease, not the cure.” – The facts vindicate the very opposite view. The growth in the U.S. economy over the past quarter century coincided with and resulted in a health­ier environment.

As implied by the “ism” affixed to it, environmentalism sometimes acts as a surrogate religion for its followers. The zeal of the committed environmentalist is based on faith—and faith in something false, at that. Logic and reason play next to no role in swaying the radical environmentalist’s devotion to his creed’s sacred tenets, such as the belief that economically ad­vanced nations threaten Mother Nature. Since many environ­mentalists believe that they’ve received an enlightenment that passed the rest of us by, they rationalize their use of deception to achieve their desired ends. When you’re saving the world, what’s the harm in telling a few lies to achieve your objective?

The problem is that, although environmentalists may cava­lierly think that they are saving the world, they are not doing anything of the sort. Their more misguided crusades have in­flicted pain on a great number of people. Victims include log­gers harmed by “tree sitters” and other activists, apple growers put out of business by the phony Alar scare, and Africans placed at greater risk for malaria because of the ban on DDT While a need for a movement that safeguards the health of the environ­ment clearly exists, we could do without the kind of environ­mentalism that relies on deception, dogmatically forgoes cost-benefit analyses of its policy prescriptions, and seeks laws whose results frequently betray their intentions.

In the wake of 1992’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, a group of scientists released a document decrying “the emergence of an irrational ideology that is opposed to scientific and indus­trial progress and impedes economic and social development.” The Heidelberg Appeal, as the statement became known, even­tually bore the signatures of 3,000 scientists, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners. “The greatest evils which stalk our earth are ignorance and oppression, not science, technology, and industry,” concluded the document. Environmentalists blaming American technology and energy use for the world’s ecological maladies would be wise to heed the message of these men of science.