LaRouchites Recommend Eating Babies To Save The Planet

After having a run in with these guys a few years back in the SCV and noting that Texas voted in a Democrat from the group, I looked into them a bit. I ended up posting 3-times on them in the past (and as a warning, many of the links in those posts may be dead).

What I found out is that they do stuff to grab attention. In the past however, their tactics allowed the mainstream media to portend that the TEA Party peeps were right-wing racist by highlighting in their stories posters of Obama with a Hitler stache at the TEA Party events. But as my two June posts show clearly is that an elected Democrat was holding the same signs, as she was part of this organization. And the founder himself (Lyndon LaRouche) ran for office 7-times… as a Democrat.

Well, this Leftist Political Cult (more cult than Leftist) is at it again in grabbing headlines. What irked me is that many of the conservative sites I went to assumed this lady was an AOC fan. As soon as I watched the video I knew it was a prank of some kind… I just thought it was some comedian or radio morning show prank. The newly silk screened shirt gave it away. But I wasn’t tracking with it being a LaRouchite ploy.

Here is the video (look how caught off guard AOC looks — if anything, the look on her face meeting people from a crazier cult than she is from is priceless:

Here are examples of just how wrong people got the the “baby eating” troll by this LaRouchite chapter. GLENN BECK said this was an “environmentalist activist,” Emma Vigeland of THE YOUNG TURKS said this was a “Trump Troll.” Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed that the woman who suggested “eating babies” was a solution to climate change “was a Trump supporter.” Others claimed she was mentally ill.

As an aside, all the sites that say AOC should have clearly denounced cannibalism [eating babies] otherwise she by default supports it are wrong. She doesn’t have to denounce it because it is automatically assumed this position is sick and the nuance of publicly rejecting it is silly. JUST LIKE those asking Trump to continually reject “white nationalism” are just as silly as rejecting eating babies.

Here is the tracking down of this woman on Twitter and her affiliation with The Lyndon LaRouche cult:

THE DAILY CALLER had a good post on the group/incident. In it Shelby Talcott (the article’s author) rightly notes the following (EMPHASIZED):

The LaRouche PAC, a fringe political action committee, took credit for the stunt Thursday evening on Twitter. The group responded to multiple tweets on the incident, writing “it was us” repeatedly, The Washington Post reported.

[….]

THE GROUP’S STUNT IS “A FAIRLY WELL-ESTABLISHED TACTIC” FOR IT, MATTHEW SWEET, A HISTORIAN WHO HAS DOCUMENTED THE GROUP, SAID ACCORDING TO WAPO. CONSPIRACY THEORIST LYNDON H. LAROUCHE JR. FOUNDED THE LAROUCHE PAC.

“THEY’VE BEEN DOING THIS SINCE THE ’70S,”

Sweet told WaPo. “The tactic is you go to a political meeting and you create a disturbance that disrupts the meeting, and more importantly, that creates a kind of chaos.”

The article continues on with all the finger pointing going on in our “immediate” social media world. (I just told my own two sons to wait a couple of days to see where the chips fall.) The article then continues on with the more important issue of the groups history and aims:

LaRouche Jr. built up his following, which reaches across the world, “based on conspiracy theories, economic doom, anti-Semitism, homophobia and racism,” WaPo wrote in an obituary on LaRouche Jr., who died in 2019. He ran for president eight times between 1976 and 2004.

A judge sentenced LaRouche Jr., who once was a member of the U.S. Labor Party, to 15 years in prison in 1989 for defaulting on over $30 million in loans from his supporters and planning to defraud the IRS, The Associated Press reported.

He “has managed to attract a small but fanatical following to his conspiratorial view of the world,” the conservative Heritage Foundation said in a 1984 report according to WaPo. The cult advocates for economic recovery and wants to implement its four economic laws, according to its website.

LaRouche’s four laws are restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, making a new national bank, creating a crash program to develop fusion power and space, and increasing productivity for credit applications, Newsweek reported….

The instigator is right about the Swedish professor though. The professor spoke about cannibalism being a sustainable food source (the report in the Swedish language can be seen HERE) — and if you haven’t heard of this guy yet, here is CLIMATE DEPOT’S post on professor Söderlund’s ideas, pre-ceeded by Ezra Levent’s show with Marc Morano:

:

….A conference about the food of the future called Gastro Summit being held in Stockholm Sweden featured a presentation by Magnus Söderlund claiming that we must get used to the idea of eating human flesh in the future, as a way of combating the effects of climate change.

As reported by the Epoch Times:

In a talk titled: “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh,”  behavioral Scientist and Marketing Strategist Behavioral Scientist and Marketing Strategist Magnus Söderlund from “Handelshögskolan” (College of Commerce) argues for the breaking down of the ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and eating human flesh

Boy that makes me very happy I keep Kosher because humans don’t have split hooves and chew their cud, so I won’t be eating human flesh.

Söderlund refers to the taboos against it as “conservative.” Yep,  he claims those who don’t want to eat your dead relatives are old fogys who don’t want to save the planet.  He adds that people can be sold on the idea little by little, first by persuading people to just taste it. Tasting it? Over my dead body—-er maybe that’s not the correct phrase, but you get the idea.

Conflating resistance to eating human flesh with capitalist selfishness, the seminar’s talking points ask:

“Are we humans too selfish to live sustainably?

Capitalist selfishness? Just another reason to hate Socialism.

“Is Cannibalism the solution to food sustainability in the future? Does Generation Z have the answers to our food challenges? Can consumers be tricked into making the right decisions? At GastroSummit you will get some answers to these questions—and also partake in the latest scientific findings and get to meet the leading experts.”

In his talk, Söderlund asks the audience how many would be open to the idea. Not many hands go up. Some groaning is heard.  When interviewed after his talk, he reports brightly that 8 percent of conference participants said they would be open to trying it. When asked if he himself would try it, he replies: “I feel somewhat hesitant but to not appear overly conservative…I’d have to say….I’d be open to at least tasting it.

What about the fact that science has proven that eating other people can make you crazy.

[….]

It’s bad enough that fans of the climate change hypothesis want to destroy the economy for their worldwide redistribution of income scheme, but this is just too gross….


FLASHBACK WEIRDNESS


Mind you, this isn’t the first time a “wild eyed” proposal was made by crazies! The Guillotine was proposed by a Democrat Georgia House of Representatives, Doug Teper (D-61), as a better way to impose the death penalty on others. Rep Teper did receive an award: Honors and Awards Young Democrats of DeKalb DEDICATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT. 

In 1996 in the US, Georgia State Representative Doug Teper[37] unsuccessfully sponsored a bill to replace that state’s electric chair with the guillotine.[38]

[37] “Representative Doug Teper (D-61)”. Georgia House of Representatives. Retrieved 3 October2013.[permanent dead link]

[38] “Georgia House of Representatives – 1995/1996 Sessions HB 1274 – Death penalty; guillotine provisions”. The General Assembly of Georgia. Archived from the original on 4 October 2013. Retrieved 3 October 2013.

(WIKI ZERO)

Another blogpost post zeroes in on the possible animus for such proposals (and mind you, I am speaking of this partly to put into the record here at RPT these old proposals by Democrats to put them into the search history of my site to recall them in discussion):

The Arizona assembly considered a bill that would give prisoners a choice of their method of execution: lethal injection or having their organs harvested for transplant.  The bill was voted down in light of the American College of Physicians statement that physicians should not be involved in the execution process.

Georgia State Representative Doug Teper proposed writing legislation that would give prisoners a choice between death by electrocution or guillotine.  Those opting for the guillotine would be given the option to donate their organs. The legislation was never brought before the state senate

Utopianism at it’s most dreamiest.

Amazon Fires (Climate Depot)

The following is from the voluminousness collecting of CLIMATE DEPOT, saved here for use as DEPOT’S front-page often changes to refute the latest scare. Enjoy yhe many links and info below… there is a video at the bottom of Marc Morano discussing the issue PRIOR to the G7.

  • The Amazon rainforest is not the “lungs of the Earth” – It does NOT produce 20 per cent of the world’s oxygen. The Amazon rain forest is a closed system that uses all its own oxygen and carbon dioxide.

AMAZON IS NOT THE ‘LUNGS OF THE EARTH’ SAY SCIENTISTS (NEWSMAX):

Some experts say claims that the Amazon fires are burning “Earth’s lungs” and threatening the planet’s oxygen supply are false, reports Fox News.

The assertion has caught traction as celebrities, environmentalists and political leaders have blamed Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for destroying the world’s largest rainforest, which they say is the “lungs of the world.”

  • “The Amazon rain forest — the lungs which produce 20% of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire,” tweeted French President Emanuel Macron.
  • “The lungs of the Earth are in flames,” said actor Leonardo DiCaprio. 
  • “The Amazon Rainforest produces more than 20% of the world’s oxygen,” tweeted soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo.

Dan Nepstad, president and founder of Earth Innovation Institute, told Forbes there’s no science behind the claims.

“The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash,” he said.

Scott Denning, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, says the fires don’t threaten the planet’s oxygen supply.

“Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests — and indeed, all land plants — is very close to zero,” Denning wrote Tuesday in a SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN essay…. TO WIT

The resurgence of forest clearing in the Amazon, which had decreased more than 80% following a peak in 2004, is alarming for many reasons. Tropical forests harbor many species of plants and animals found nowhere else. They are important refuges for indigenous people, and contain enormous stores of carbon as wood and other organic matter that would otherwise contribute to the climate crisis.

Some media accounts have suggested that fires in the Amazon also threaten the atmospheric oxygen that we breathe. French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted on Aug. 22 that “the Amazon rain forest—the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen—is on fire.”

The oft-repeated claim that the Amazon rainforest produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen is based on a misunderstanding. In fact nearly all of Earth’s breathable oxygen originated in the oceans, and there is enough of it to last for millions of years. There are many reasons to be appalled by this year’s Amazon fires, but depleting Earth’s oxygen supply is not one of them.

OXYGEN FROM PLANTS

As an atmospheric scientist, much of my work focuses on exchanges of various gases between Earth’s surface and the atmosphere. Many elements, including oxygen, constantly cycle between land-based ecosystems, the oceans and the atmosphere in ways that can be measured and quantified.

Nearly all free oxygen in the air is produced by plants through photosynthesis. About one-third of land photosynthesis occurs in tropical forests, the largest of which is located in the Amazon Basin.

But virtually all of the oxygen produced by photosynthesis each year is consumed by living organisms and fires. Trees constantly shed dead leaves, twigs, roots and other litter, which feeds a rich ecosystem of organisms, mostly insects and microbes. The microbes consume oxygen in that process.

Forest plants produce lots of oxygen, and forest microbes consume a lot of oxygen. As a result, net production of oxygen by forests—and indeed, all land plants—is very close to zero.

[….]

Even though plant photosynthesis is ultimately responsible for breathable oxygen, only a vanishingly tiny fraction of that plant growth actually adds to the store of oxygen in the air. Even if all organic matter on Earth were burned at once, less than 1% of the world’s oxygen would be consumed.

In sum, Brazil’s reversal on protecting the Amazon does not meaningfully threaten atmospheric oxygen. Even a huge increase in forest fires would produce changes in oxygen that are difficult to measure.

WUWT FIRES POSTS

Selective and Misplaced Outrage at Brazil’s President Bolsonaro over Amazonian Fires

CLIMATE DEPOT STUFF….

NASA: GLOBAL WILDFIRES DROP BY 25% SINCE 2003 – PLUS STUDY FINDS EARTH’S TREE COVER INCREASED BY 7% SINCE 1982

“Since NASA satellites program MODIS began collecting measurements there has been a decrease in the total number of square kilometers burned each year. Between 2003 and 2019, that number has dropped by roughly 25 percent.” –NASA Earth Observatory, August 2019

“News reports about the Amazon fires strike a fear that one of the last great forests is disappearing.  That’s completely untrue. Forests are making a comeback! More precisely, the tree cover of the planet is increasing.  Since 1982, a recent peer-reviewed paper in Nature suggests, the planet’s tree cover increased by 2.24 million km2 (an increase of roughly 7%).”  –Vincent Geloso, American Institute for Economic Research, 26 August 2019

YOU HAVE BEEN AMAZON.CONNED – NASA: AMAZON RAINFOREST BURNING AT ‘BELOW AVERAGE’ RATES, WORST SINCE 2010 – FIRES MOSTLY FARMS, NOT FORESTS – BOLIVIA’S ‘SOCIALIST’ WILDFIRES IGNORED

NASA: Amazon Is Burning At ‘Below Average’ Rates

Update: NASA: Uptick in Amazon Fire Activity in 2019 – August 19, 2019: “With the fire season in the Amazon approaching its midpoint, scientists using NASA satellites to track fire activity have confirmed an increase in the number and intensity of fires in the Brazilian Amazon in 2019, making it the most active fire year in that region since 2010.”

Amazon rainforest fires at record high levels? ‘This is a blatant lie’ – Fires ‘nowhere close to a record so far in 2019’-“The NY Times claims 2019 fires are way up, over 2018. That is correct. What they don’t say, is that about 1/2 the years BEFORE 2019 are higher, and about 1/2 are lower. Cherry picking of the first order.”

FALSE ALARM: AMAZON BURNING IS MOSTLY FARMS, NOT FORESTS

Bolivia’s Wildfires Ignored By The BBC – The Reason? ‘Evo Morales is a socialist, unlike Brazil’s Bolsonaro’ –Of course, Evo Morales is a socialist, unlike Brazil’s Bolsonaro. But I am sure that had nothing to do with the BBC’s lack of interest in this story!
“The Amazon rainforest is not the “lungs of the Earth” – It does NOT produce 20 per cent of the world’s oxygen. The Amazon rain forest is a closed system that uses all its own oxygen and carbon dioxide.”

Wash Post shoddy Amazon fire reporting: Resorts to anecdotal ‘memories’ instead of actual scientific data: ‘I cannot remember any other big fire’ & the highest ‘I have ever seen’

AMAZON FIRES – A BIG, FAT NOTHINGBURGER OF A #FAKENEWS SCARE STORY

The fires are mainly in agricultural areas as farmers prepare their land for planting. The land was cleared in the past.

An informative article and very informative map by NYT on Amazon fires. Map shows that fires in previously cleared land. Nothing new. Furore is yet another fraud by enviro activists. TWITTER PIC

FALSE ALARM: AMAZON BURNING IS MOSTLY FARMS, NOT FORESTS

So why are there so many fires? “Natural fires in the Amazon are rare, and the majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for next year’s crops and pasture,” soberly explains The New York Times. “Much of the land that is burning was not old-growth rain forest, but land that had already been cleared of trees and set for agricultural use.”

It is routine for farmers and ranchers in tropical areas burn their fields to control pests and weeds and to encourage new growth in pastures. What about deforestation trends?  Since the right-wing nationalist Jair Bolsonaro became Brazil’s president, rainforest deforestation rates have increased a bit, but they are still way below their earlier highs:

ENVIRONMENTALIST SHELLENBERGER: WHY EVERYTHING THEY SAY ABOUT THE AMAZON, INCLUDING THAT IT’S THE ‘LUNGS OF THE WORLD,’ IS WRONG

While the number of fires in 2019 is indeed 80% higher than in 2018, it’s just 7% higher than the average over the last 10 years ago.

SCIENTISTS PUSH BACK ON ‘EXAGGERATED’ AMAZON FIRE CLAIMS – ‘FIRES ARE BEING USED TO CRUSH BOLSONARO POLITICALLY AND VILIFY HIM’

Marc Morano: “The Brazilian president has been labeled a ‘climate denier’ by the media, thus he must be stopped. The Amazon fires are being used to crush Bolsonaro politically and vilify him. The fires in Bolivia are being ignored by the media because Bolivia’s government is socialist and does not fit the narrative of evil ‘right-wing,’” Mr. Morano said. “Bolivia is protected from media criticism because they are the politically correct political leaders.” …

Climate scientist Roy Spencer had another term for the fires: “normal agriculture.” I think the media focus on this is misplaced and exaggerated, as is virtually every weather-related story that appears these days,” said Mr. Spencer, a former NASA scientist who does consulting on global crop-market forecasting.“The driest years in Brazil will have the most fires set by farmers,” the professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville said in an email. “That isn’t a climate story, it’s normal agriculture in a country where 50 million people living in poverty are trying to survive.” …

Environmentalist Mike Shellenberger: “The photos you saw weren’t of today’s fires in Brazil – Amazon isn’t the “lungs of the world” – Deforestation is 75% below 2004 peak – *Forest* fires not increasing – Fires 7% more than decadal ave. – Here’s why everything they say about the Amazon is wrong https://t.co/dQIIwv5DRq

The incidence of fire was higher from 2003 to 2007 and in 2010, during the administration of former Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a member of the Workers’ Party, although he received little in the way of an international backlash.

WASH POST SHODDY AMAZON FIRE REPORTING: RESORTS TO ANECDOTAL ‘MEMORIES’ INSTEAD OF ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC DATA: ‘I CANNOT REMEMBER ANY OTHER BIG FIRE’ & THE HIGHEST ‘I HAVE EVER SEEN’

WaPo Key Excerpts: “I cannot remember any other big fire episode like this one,” said Vitor Gomes, an environmental scientist at the Federal University of Para.

…Ricardo Mello, head of the World Wide Fund for Nature’s Amazon program, struggled to find the words to describe his pessimism on Thursday.

“It’s historically — this is highest number [of fires] I’ve ever seen,” he said.

Climate Depot Note: You don’t have to  “have seen or “remember” past fires based on one or two peoples limited memory and exposure. We have actual scientific data to show us what is happening and the data does not support these false “memories” that the Post cites twice in their feature article.

BRAZIL’S BOLSONARO GETS BLAMED FOR SAME AMAZON FIRES ALSO PLAGUING SOCIALIST BOLIVIA – BUT MEDIA IGNORES!

“The left is doing its level best to blame Brazil’s bush fires on Brazil’s conservative, Trump-like president, Jair Bolsonaro, and get him thrown out of office…Socialist President Evo Morales has openly encouraged what’s known, at least in Venezuela, as “conuco” agriculture, telling subsistance farmers it’s fine to set of fires to gather charcoal to sell for fuel or clear the land of brush for planting, and now he’s refusing international firefighting help.”

“Now Bolivia is robbing them of their rimshot argument. No more Sting and the rainforest man for their “narrative” now. What appears to be a far more desperate and mismanaged situation is going on Bolivia, and we don’t see any eurochicken clucking about the “lungs of the world” or sanctioning the socialist hellhole. The European Union and much of the G-7 are focused exclusively on Brazil and putting the screws to Bolsonaro blaming him for a broader temporary weather phenomenon. It’s starting to look political and it would be a welcome thing if President Trump sticks up for the man among the clucker. Bolivia makes their hypocrisy show.”

DAY AFTER STATING NO LINK, NY TIMES BLAMES AMAZON FIRES ON ‘GLOBAL WARMING’

Tomi Lahren Interviews Marc Morano About Temperature Fudging

What would it take to convince us crazy, conservative, “climate deniers” that global warming is, in fact, causing a man-made apocalypse? Well Hmmmm, maybe you “scientists” could stop lying about it.

I have been waiting for the following information to explain the below graph more thoroughly:

1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)

2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?

See more at link in graphic:

Marc Morano vs. Carol Andress (From The Environmental Defense Fund)

The Debate Is NOT Over In West Virginia Board of Education

The debate may be over for Al Gore, most leading Democrats, and the media like the New York Times, NPR, the Chicago Tribune, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and the like. But at least kids now have the freedom of thought to debate the issue where those surrounding them are to juvenile to consider freedom of thought (and not re-education camps) the intelligent choice!

Marc Morano Testifies Before West Virginia Board of Education:

The Daily Mail notes of this victory that deeper discussion will ensue:

Two months after withdrawing its controversial science education standards with modifications that would have asked students to question the scientific community’s assertion that global warming is caused by human greenhouse emissions, the West Virginia Board of Education voted Thursday to amend the standards once again to allow classroom debate on climate change.

Despite months of national scrutiny from media outlets, teachers and educational organizations that support scientific research proving human activity causes climate change, the board voted 6-2 to approve the newly amended standards, which will now go into effect on July 1, 2016….

[….]

…The new amendment removes both “rise and fall” and replaces it with “changes.”

Another amended standard that would have had students discuss natural forces like Milankovitch cycles and how they affect climate change was scaled back to remove language about the cycles, which are long-term changes in the Earth’s orbit often cited by those who don’t believe global warming is caused by human activity.

Linger also proposed adding language to the standards’ introduction that reemphasizes using evidence to support arguments, claims and counterclaims….

(Charleston Daily Mail)

Craig Rucker testifies before the West Virginia Board of Education:

And C-FACT has this:

“Supporters of the changes, including board members Wade Linger and Tom Campbell, argued that ‘science is never settled’ and that debate will lead students into a deeper understanding of the issue,” the paper added.

The vote represents a significant victory for student rights and for science.  The scientific method demands consideration of all data, without regard for the impact this may have on a cherished theory.  Open minds and free debate are essential to science and climate science is no exception.

When the Board voted in December to amend teaching standards to allow students to consider both sides in the climate debate, global warming pressure groups were apoplectic.

They ridiculed the Board and demanded it drop its revised standards and ban facts which question the man-made global warming narrative from the classroom.

CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker, Marc Morano, who edits CFACT’s Climate Depot news and information service and a contingent of students from CFACT Collegians chapters at the University of West Virginia and Marshall University testified before the Board, which voted in January to temporarily pull back the amended standards and further consider the matter.

CFACT also asked readers to submit comments to the Board and large numbers did.  Sources close to the West Virginia Board report that CFACT readers submitted thoughtful and persuasive comments that made a  significant impact on the proceedings.

The original standards forced students to only consider “rises” in temperature.  The amended standards substitute “changes” and permits students to consider “natural forces” as well as human activity when they study the climate.

(CFACT)

The 97% Consensus Myth (Links and Videos)

Video Description:

Marc Morano of Climate Depot interviewed on the Jan Mickelson show (WHO radio’s ~ Feb 3rd, 2015).

One of the main topics is the 97% consensus of scientists who agree man is the main prognosticator of global warming. Below are some links to many articles refuting this unscientific [if it were true] consensus:

 Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (Forbes);
 (WSJThe Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’; What is the origin of the false belief that almost all scientists agree about global warming? (Hockey Schtick);
 97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus” (Popular Technology);
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them (Popular Technology)

 Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (New American);
 Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science (Climate Change Dispatch);
 Undersecretary of Energy for Science For Obama Rejects “Scientism” (RPT);
 100% Consensus ~ As If More Were Needed (RPT).
 The myth of ‘settled science’ – When the left shuts down debate, it’s time for skepticism (Washington Times)
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis (Forbes)
Debunking the 97% ‘consensus’ on global warming (American Spectator)
Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper (WUWT – See Dr. Tol’s blog)
The 97% Cook Consensus – when will Environ Res Letters retract it? (JoNova)
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Debunks ‘97% Consensus’ Claim (Breitbart)
The 97 Percent Climate Change Consensus That Wasn’t (Heartland)

No matter what you think of the following long and short lists… the bottom line is this, WAY more than 75-Climatologists think that man is either not the main contributor to global warming at all, or that global warming is not a catastrophe waiting to happen:

He mentioned most of the experts KNOW how CO2 affects climate. He says he does not and doesn’t think they do either. This has nothing to do with the supposed “consensus” of experts — 97% — who “say” it is driven by mankind. This is known as anthropogenic global warming, of AGW. The myth of the 97% started with ONLY 75-out-of-77 climatologists saying they believe man is the primary cause.

Yes, you heard me correctly, seventy-five.

Another study has undergrads and non-specialists (bloggers) search through many articles in peer reviewed journals, and noting that a large majority supported the AGW position. The problem was that they were not specialized in the field of science… AND… they only read the abstracts, not the peer reviewed paper itself. Many of the scientists behind the papers “said” to support AGW rejected that idea. So the specialists THEMSELVES said their papers cannot be read to support the AGW position.

Another study (pictured in the graph above) tries to save an earlier one with tainted information based on abstracts — a very UNSCIENTIFIC way to get to consensus (that is, relying on abstracts). Not only was this study based on abstracts, again, non specialists categorized them. Yet another study was merely based on search parameters/results. Here is more info (mainly links) for the not-faint-of-heart.

In reality, nearly half of specialists in the fields related reject man causing climates change.

And a good portion of those that do reject the claim that it is detrimental to our planet.

Only 13% saw relatively little danger (ratings of 1 to 3 on a 10-point scale); the rest were about evenly split between the 44% who see moderate to high danger (ratings of 4 to 7) and 41% who see very high or grave danger (ratings of 8 to 10). (Forbes)

Here is a list of scientists with varying views on the cause of “Climate Change,” and here is a list of 31,000 who stand against man as the primary cause.

(Click Graph To See Previously Hidden Data)

We’ve all been subjected to the incessant “97% of scientists agree …global warming…blah blah” meme, which is nothing more than another statistical fabrication by John Cook and his collection of “anything for the cause” zealots. As has been previously pointed out on WUWT, when you look at the methodology used to reach that number, the veracity of the result falls apart, badly. You see, it turns out that Cook simply employed his band of “Skeptical Science” (SkS) eco-zealots to rate papers, rather than letting all authors of the papers rate their own work (Note: many authors weren’t even contacted and their papers wrongly rated, see here). The result was that the “97% consensus” was a survey of the SkS raters beliefs and interpretations, rather than a survey of the authors opinions of their own science abstracts. Essentially it was pal-review by an activist group with a strong bias towards a particular outcome as demonstrated by the name “the consensus project”.

[….]

Dr. Judith Curry writes:

Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column:  52% state the the warming since 1850 is mostly anthropogenic.  One common categorization would categorize the other 48%  as ‘deniers’.

So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”

(Read More at WUWT)

[….]

I wish to note, that, the truth was not a 97% consensus, but that about half disagreed with man causing it. Which is about the same percentage Dr. Happer says on CNBC:

Even the “Father of Climatology” (so all the programs in universities are because of him) says it’s B.S.

CFACT At UN Climate Change Conference 2014 (Plus New Climategate)

Via Climate Depot:

  • Apollo 7’s Walt Cunningham: ‘My background in space science. My doctoral thesis that I was working on was fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field. I have no political inhibitions at all, I just think we ought to be honest about this and not be trying to use it to our own ends to try to get money from the government.’ Also see: Apollo Astronaut Slams UN for perpetrating the ‘one of the biggest frauds in the field of science’
  • Marc Morano: ‘The UN is first and foremost political and they have bastardized science to achieve a political end…The UN claims that they can alter global temperature and storminess and weather events many decades to 100  years into the future. And the United Nations does not have that power — that is reserved for medieval witchcraft.’

[An example of “political”]

* “The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders…. Dr. Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furor over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.” (David Rose, The Daily Mail, January 24, 2010)

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), [FN] 161.

Investors Business Daily asks the following, “If Climate Change Is Real, Why Do Scientists Fudge Data?” ~ h/t to CFACT!

…And of course the enviro-left is going to cheat. That’s the charge against Richard A. Feely, a senior scientist with the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It seems his chart supposedly showing the rising danger of ocean acidification is this issue’s equivalent of the tortured global warming hockey stick. According to climate blogger Anthony Watts, “Feely’s work is based on computer models that don’t line up with real-world data.”

What’s more, Feely has reportedly threatened a scientific colleague who wanted to see the real-world data points behind the chart, telling him he would “not last long” in his career if he continues to question the “motives or quality of” Feely and his colleague’s science and continues to press for the data.

Mike Wallace, the University of New Mexico hydrologist working on a nanogeosciences doctorate who wants to see the data, told Watts that Feely’s response “eclipses even the so-called climategate event.”…

If you forget what Climate-Gate was [is], here is a refresher.

UPDATED ~ Australia Cuts Global Warming Budget by 90%

UPDATED W/VIDEO

Gateway Pundit has two stories that really should be one. The first is of the Australian government cutting back 90% of the funding related to global warming from their annual budget.

The Daily Caller reported:

Australia’s conservative coalition is set to cut more than 90 percent of the funding related to global warming from their budget, from $5.75 billion this year to $500 million, over the next four years.

Environmentalists and leftist politicians in the country protested the move by conservative Liberal Party Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s governing coalition to slash funding for climate programs, arguing such funding for green energy and reducing carbon dioxide emissions were necessary to stop global warming….

And the other old story that is more than worth repeating is this (via Gateway):

Over five years ago Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

This wasn’t the only time Gore made his ice-free prediction. Gore’s been predicting this since 2007. That means that this year the North Pole should be completely melted by now.

Not only is the North Polar cap not melted away – global warming is not happening either. There has been no global warming in 17 years and 9 months [graph at top].

 This flat-line comes at a time of a drastic increase in CO2:

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. 

Dr. Salby demonstrates:

  • CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
  • The IPCC claim that “All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity” is impossible
  • “Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels”
  • Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
  • 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
  • Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
  • Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
  • Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable – CO2 – and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
  • The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
  • Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
  • Climate models have no predictive value
  • Feynman’s quoteIt doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong” applies to the theory of man-made global warming.

See and Read More HERE

Watch Climate Debate Between Morano & TV Anchor Anand Naidoo

Also, see the recent recanting of major contributor to the Global Warming theory, via Climate Depot:

Scientist Dr. Daniel Botkin Tells Congress why he reversed his belief in global warming to become a skeptic: ‘There are several lines of evidence suggesting that it (AGW) is a weaker case today, not a stronger case’ — Rips Obama climate report as ‘filled with misstatements contradicted by well-established and well-known scientific papers’

Prominent Scientist Dr. Botkin, who has studied climate change for 45 years, told the Committee in Q&A:  ‘I have been concerned about global warming since 1968 and in the 1980s, it looked like the weight of evidence lent towards human induced climate change, to a significant extant, and since then it’s moved against it.’

Later in the hearing, Botkin elaborated: ‘I was concerned that there was a human induced climate warning and I gave talks and TV interviews that said that, but since the middle of the 1990s, there is evidence that is running against that. 

For example the temperature change is not tracking carbon dioxide very well. Then there is the information from the long term antarctic ice core and some from recent paper in the arctic,  that suggest that carbon dioxide does not lead temperature change,  it may actually lag it significantly or may not lead it at all, and if that is the case that is still an open but important scientific evidence. 

So there are several lines of evidence that are suggesting that it (AGW) is a weaker case today, not a stronger case.’

[….]

Selected Excerpts: (Full Testimony here)

Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects, and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate.

[….]

I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.

2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

[….]

The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century.

Nine Environmental Issues that need our attention now

  • Energy
  • Fresh water
  • Phosphorus and other essential minerals
  • Habitat destruction
  • Invasive-species control
  • Endangered species
  • Pollution by directly toxic substances
  • Fisheries
  • Forests

Other scientists turning on “evidence” of anthropogenic global warming.


UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips IPCC at Congressional Hearing: ‘The IPCC leadership has in the past been very adept at putting troublesome authors in positions where they cannot harm the cause. That practice must end’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips 97% consensus claim: ‘The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever’ – IPCC Lead Author Trashes 97% Consensus claims: UN IPCC Lead Author & University of Sussex economist Dr. Richard Tol: ‘Science is, of course, never settled.’ – Tol: ‘The 97% estimate is bandied about by basically everybody.  I had a close look at what this study really did. as far as I can see, The estimate just crumbles when you touch it. None of the statements in the papers are supported by the data that’s in the paper. The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.

Flashback: UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol admits no global warming for 17 years – Rips bias in IPCC – UN’s ‘inbuilt alarmism made me step down’ – ‘By the time the report was finished, however, it hadn’t warmed for 17 years’

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: ‘One of the startling facts about climate change is that there are very few facts about climate change. Climate change is mainly something of the future so we are really talking about model projections’

Congressional hearing: Scientists say UN IPCC puts politics before science, needs reform – IPCC Lead Author Tol: ‘Competent people are excluded because their views do not match those of their government’

UN Lead Author Michael Oppenheimer Admits to Congress Climate Science Not ‘Settled’: ‘The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result (of rising CO2), that’s not’ settled

Tax-Payer Funded `Love-Boat` Tour of the Ravages of Global Warming on Sea-Ice Back-Fires (Caroling in the Antarctic)

Who was on board (Breitbart)?

According to the Guardian, the passengers consist of about 25 professors and graduate students, 20 tourists and 22 Russian crew members.

You can’t make this stuff up! Some environmentalists were taking a “Love Boat” type tour of the effects of global warming melting the ice in the Antarctic. PWNED!

NewsBusters points out the missing story bi-lines from the legacy media in the purpose of this mostly tax-payer funded boondoggle:


So what was the exact mission of these scientists? AP is rather vague about this reporting only:

The scientific team on board the research ship — which left New Zealand on Nov. 28 — had been recreating Australian explorer Douglas Mawson’s century-old voyage to Antarctica when it became trapped. They plan to continue their expedition after they are freed, expedition leader Chris Turney said.

Um, there is a bit more to the expedition than merely following in the footsteps of a century-old voyage. But what that mission really is, AP won’t say. If AP is vague about the mission’s purpose, Reuters provides even less information.

Since the MSM isn’t forthcoming as to the real purpose of those scientists traveling to Antarctica, we turn to Watts Up With That for more insight:

The expedition is being led by Chris Turney, “climate scientist”, who has “set up a carbon refining company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.” The purpose of the expedition is “to discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the south.”

It seems they found out what the “environmental changes taking place in the south.” are.

Finally, National Geographic bluntly states the mission purpose:

…The current crop of explorers are hoping to document some of the same data and compare them to Mawson’s numbers, “using the twist of modern technology,” Turney told National Geographic earlier this month.

As may be expected, global warming might play a role in this, he suggests, particularly with respect to melted ice in the East Antarctic.

Ah, so now we see why the MSM reluctance to flat out state why the scientists are in the Antarctic. Anything to avoid an inconvenient (but accurate) headline like this:

GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS TRAPPED IN ANTARCTIC ICE

See Also: 96 Percent of Network Stories Censor Why Ship Is There

Antarctic ice trapped a ship full of scientists on a climate change expedition. Yet, 96 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers ignored climate change entirely. The ship has been stuck since Christmas morning.

The broadcast networks mostly ignored the reason the Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was on its way to Antarctica. Twenty-five out of 26 stories (96 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.

…read more…

All `Data Points` Prove Global Warming

  • “So record cold is now evidence of man-made global warming? What evidence would disprove climate change? It seems like no matter the weather, everything that happens proves it.”Marc Morano

Any theory that cannot be disproved is a false theory:

“The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more ‘fit,’ or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is ‘fit’ (otherwise it wouldn’t exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. [I will add here that there is no way to quantify those unknowable animal parts in regards to the many aspects that nature could or would impose on all those parts.] If an organism possesses features that appears on the surface to be an inconvenient – such as the peacock’s tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag – the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit.

So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It ‘explains’ everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason….

The truth is that Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted is support of any cause whatsoever…. Darwinism has over the years been championed by eugenicists, social Darwinists, racialists, free-market economists, liberals galore, Wilsonian progressives, and National Socialists, to give only a partial list. Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, Communists and libertarians, and almost anyone in between, have at times found Darwinism to their liking.”

The above is from an article by Tom Bethell in The American Spectator (magazine), July/August 2007, pp. 44-46.

(RPT post on Falsifiability and Conspiracy Theories)

Marc Morano of Climate Depot Slices and Dices AGW Apologist

The gentleman Mr. Morano was responding to in the video below is the Director of the Sierra Club, Michael Brune. Brune made the point that receiving money from oil and gas was bad. Morano turned the tables not by arguing that oil and gas do not in fact give monies to these groups… instead he used the premise Brune put forward to his advantage:

Implied premise by Brune: “It is bad to receive money from oil/gas”;
Morano’s implied premise: “Okay, fine, if bad for ‘a,’ why not ‘b’.”

“….he’s [Brune] mentioning funding by the way which I think is funny. The Sierra Club took 26 million from natural gas and Michael has the audacity to try to imply that skeptics are fossil fuel funded.”

Oooops!

See Climate Depot

Here is the New York Times on the issue of the Sierra Club taking “dirty” money (see also Time Magazine’s revelation on the matter):

The recent disclosure of the Sierra Club’s secret acceptance of $26 million in donations from people associated with a natural gas company has revived an uncomfortable debate among environmental groups about corporate donations and transparency.

The gifts from the company, Chesapeake Energy, have drawn criticism from some environmentalists. “Sleeping with the enemy” was a comment much forwarded on Twitter posts about the undisclosed arrangement.

“Runners shouldn’t smoke, priests shouldn’t touch the kids, and environmentalists should never take money from polluters,” John Passacantando, a former director of Greenpeace who is now an environmental consultant, said in an interview.

Yet the donations to the Sierra Club, reported by Time magazine’s Ecocentric blog and a blog called Corporate Crime Reporter, have plenty of precedents. Between 2004 and 2006, the National Audubon Society accepted $2.1 million from the chemical giant Monsanto to find a strategy for ensuring the safety of waterfowl near industrial farms using pesticides, for example.

The Environmental Defense Fund was an early adopter of the partnership model, working two decades ago with McDonald’s to stop using polystyrene clamshells for packaging, thus eliminating tens of thousands of tons of waste. Later it teamed with Fedex to reduce the emissions of its truck fleet. But it accepts no donations from corporate partners, its leadership says.

…read more…

Two Steps Back, One Step Forward

(Via Common Sense Evaluation) Electric cars might pollute much more than petrol or diesel-powered cars, according to new research.

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology study found greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically if coal was used to produce the electricity.

Electric car factories also emitted more toxic waste than conventional car factories, their report in the Journal of Industrial Ecology said.

“The production phase of electric vehicles proved substantially more environmentally intensive,” the report said, comparing it to how petrol and diesel cars are made.

“The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles.”…..

Here is a past encounter (January 2013) between Morano and Brune, Via Climate Depot:

 


 

PIERS MORGAN, HOST:

President Obama is making the fight against extreme weather part of his second term agenda. He believes that science proves it has a human cause. With me now is Marc Morano, editor in chief of ClimateDepot.com, and Michael Brune. He’s the executive director of the Sierra Club.

Welcome to you both. Michael — Marc, I’ll start with you. When I last spoke to you about this, we had a pretty fiery debate about it. And you were impeccably opposed to any suggestion that there’s any real science to confirm global warming or genuine climate change. So rather than me get involved with this, I’m going to rest my weary voice box and let Michael tell you why there is science.

Michael, over to you.

MICHAEL BRUNE, THE SIERRA CLUB:

Sure, well, actually I don’t want to waste any time on this. The science is settled. We noticed that last year we had record numbers of wildfires throughout the Mountain West, as you cited; 61 percent of the country suffered a crippling drought. We had Superstorm Sandy with 1,000-mile diameter storm hitting the east coast, flooded my parents house, caused billions of dollars worth of damage.

The reality is that extreme weather is here. Our climate has begun to be destabilized. The good news is that we can do something about it. We have solutions to the cause of climate change. And those solutions will both help keep our families safe and help our economy grow at the same time.

MORGAN:

OK. Marc, there you have it. What do you say to that?

MARC MORANO, CLIMATEDEPOT.COM:

I say you look at the peer reviewed literature. We now know a study in journal “Nature” show that there’s 60 years, no trend in droughts. In fact, there was a decline in droughts in the U.S., except the most recent one in 2012, which wasn’t even as big as the one in the 1950s or the 1930s.

In terms of flood, 80 to 117 [correction 127] years, there’s no trend in floods. Big tornadoes are down dramatically since the 1950s — F3 or larger. And hurricanes, eight years now — the longest period without a major land falling category 3 or larger hurricane. Eight years, the longest stetch since 1900. So if you start looking at these measures —

 

MORGAN:

Answer me this point. You wouldn’t dispute there’s been increased acceleration in CO2, right?

MORANO:

No, CO2 is rising. Global temperature has now stalled for 15 or 16 years. And that is — now James Hanson of NASA has admitted at least decade of no warming, or as he said flat lining temperatures. This is an embarrassment right now.

So the whole movement has shifted to extreme storms. That’s what they’re trying to focus on now. Evidence is everywhere when you look for extremes. But the bottom line is we have always had extreme weather. In the 1970s, the CIA report and “Newsweek” and all the people worried about a coming Ice Age blamed extreme weather, droughts and bad weather and crop failure on global cooling. Now they have reversed and they are blaming the same phenomenon on global warming. It’s very convenient.