In the U.S. – thanks largely to Donald Trump – the skeptics are winning the climate argument.
But in the rest of the Western world, skeptics are losing big time because, increasingly, their voices are being censored. Nowhere is this more painfully true than in the UK, where the BBC has now officially been reprimanded by a state watchdog for telling the truth about climate change.
No really. It sounds absurd to the point of lunacy. But this is what Ofcom – Britain’s state regulator of broadcast media – has done in its latest ruling.
The BBC had run a radio interview in August 2017 with a climate skeptic – Lord Lawson (formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher). Lord Lawson made several statements about climate change, all but one of them entirely accurate.
“We do have in this country, in England, one of the highest energy costs in the world”
[in response to interviewers’ “The point Al Gore makes is that we subsidise all energy, including fossil fuel energy”] “No we don’t. That’s not true. We tax fossil fuel energy. Anyway, we subsidise renewable energy”.
Complaints were made by a person or persons unknown and Ofcom investigated. It decided, grudgingly, that the above claims were defensible.
Let’s “solve” climate change by halting economic growth, argues a paper from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna, published in Nature Climate Change.
Texas Tech professor Katharine Hayhoe tells a summit in Edmonton, Canada that climate change is “the greatest humanitarian crisis of our times”; confides how shocked she was on discovering, six months into her marriage, that her husband did not believe in global warming. “You have somebody you respect and you also love and you also want to stay married. I said well, ‘Let’s talk about it.’” Apparently it took two years to convince him.
Activists at Cambridge University warn of “large scale disruption” if the university’s £6.3 billion endowment fund ignores their demands that it should divest itself of its fossil fuel investment holdings.
An ex-White-House staffer from the Obama era tells Washingtonian about the time her date with a man came to a sudden end when he said he didn’t believe in global warming: “I started laughing, because I’m from Colorado and didn’t realize people actually didn’t believe in global warming. But he was serious.”
Climate industrial complex in UK has wasted £100 billion and shut down debate to no useful purpose, warns Peter Lilley – one of Margaret Thatcher’s former ministers.
‘Stop blaming both sides for America’s climate failures’, argues Guardiancolumnist. ‘The fault lies entirely with the GOP.’
I could go on but I wouldn’t want to bore you. Or myself. When you’ve been covering the climate/environment/energy beat for as long as I have, every day is Groundhog Day. Every day it’s the same bunch of troughers, spivs, second-raters, crooks, liars, half-wits, chancers, bottom-feeders and eco-fascists churning out the same old propaganda…
Scientists in the Netherlands have found a new excuse as to why sea levels are stubbornly refusing to rise in line with Al Gore’s doomsday predictions: “ocean bottom deformation.”
Apparently, they claim in a study by Thomas Frederikse et al, the weight of the extra water caused by all those melting glaciers and icecaps is so great that it is causing the sea bed to sink.
Their paper – titled ‘Ocean Bottom Deformation Due To Present-Day Mass Redistribution and Its Impact on Sea Level Observations’ – is published in Geophysical Research Letters.Here is the abstract:
Present-day mass redistribution increases the total ocean mass and, on average, causes the ocean bottom to subside elastically. Therefore, barystatic sea level rise is larger than the resulting global mean geocentric sea level rise, observed by satellite altimetry and GPS-corrected tide gauges. We use realistic estimates of mass redistribution from ice mass loss and land water storage to quantify the resulting ocean bottom deformation and its effect on global and regional ocean volume change estimates. Over 1993–2014, the resulting globally averaged geocentric sea level change is 8% smaller than the barystatic contribution. Over the altimetry domain, the difference is about 5%, and due to this effect, barystatic sea level rise will be underestimated by more than 0.1 mm/yr over 1993–2014. Regional differences are often larger: up to 1 mm/yr over the Arctic Ocean and 0.4 mm/yr in the South Pacific. Ocean bottom deformation should be considered when regional sea level changes are observed in a geocentric reference frame.
What this means is that seas are expanding much faster than is shown either by satellite altimetry or tide gauges. We just can’t see it because it’s happening, unnoticed, on the deep sea beds.
Yep. Where others might see a crisis, Al Gore has spotted a Rahm-Emanuel-style opportunity to promote his renewables scam. This bitter cold, he wants you to know, isn’t a sign that his global warming theory is a busted flush. It’s a sign that he’s even more right than ever before!
Well, you’ve got to admire his chutzpah.
And he’s found the perfect huckster to promote the virtues of his miracle snake oil: none other than Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann.
Wherever you’re shivering, right now, I’d like to set you a challenge. I want you to see if you can get to the end of this article, written by Mann, without being possessed by an unstoppable urge to head to the Arctic with as many RPGs as you can lay your hands on in order to destroy as many polar bears as you can. Or, failing that, to pour some bleach into your nearest colony of snaildarters.
Mann’s hectoring smugness is so unbearable, it’s like an act of war.
Here’s a sample:
Indeed, most of the Northern Hemisphere, and the globe overall, have been unusually warm. That’s why we call it global warming, folks.
Climate change was box office poison in Hollywood in 2017.
As Christian Toto reports in Washington Times, all the movies with environmental themes flopped.
Bladerunner 2049, where eco-systems have collapsed – presumably because of man’s selfishness, greed, and refusal to amend his carbon-guzzling lifestyle – and food can now only be grown under hermetically sealed pods.
Mother!, where the Jennifer Lawrence character apparently symbolizes Mother Earth. According to the director Darren Aronofsky: “America is schizophrenic. We go from backing the Paris climate [accord] to eight months later pulling out. It’s tragic, but in many ways, we’ve revealed who the enemy is and now we can go attack it.”
What is the cause of the devastating fires in California which have killed more than 40 people, destroyed or damaged more than 5000 buildings, with an estimated financial loss running into the tens of billions of dollars?
Climate change, of course!
Well, at least it is if you believe all the usual suspects.
Here’s Al Gore, trying to pin it on “global warming” while simultaneously promoting the renewables interests that have made him so disgustingly rich:
“All over the West we’re seeing these fires get much, much worse,” Gore said, noting that a number of factors contribute to this. “The underlying cause is the heat.”
[…] “The heart of it is that we still depend on fossil fuels,” Gore said.
“It’s been a tough couple of weeks with hurricanes and earthquakes and now these terrible fires,” Clinton told an audience at the University of California, Davis while promoting her new book “What Happened.”
“So in addition to expressing our sympathy, we need to really come together to try to work to prevent and mitigate, and that starts with acknowledging climate change and the role that it plays in exacerbating such events,” Clinton said, according to First Coast News.
Meteorologist Roy Spencer has written a book which fact-checks Al Gore’s latest climate-disaster-porn movie An Inconvenient Sequel.
Spoiler alert: Gore’s scaremongering ‘facts’ are all inconveniently untrue.
Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, begins his book An Inconvenient Deception kindly, by noting that he much prefers the new movie to its 2006 Oscar-winning prequel An Inconvenient Truth.
It was much less of a PowerPoint presentation and more of a human interest story. It follows Gore over the years as he tries to convince fellow politicians, foreign heads of state, and the public that the climate crisis is real. While some have considered Gore’s role in the movie to be too self-indulgent, I thought it showed some humanity in someone many people over the years have considered too “stiff”.
But there the praise ends. When Spencer saw the movie, he was one of only three viewers in a 750-seat theater – and one of these people walked out half way through. This local reaction is borne out by the movie’s dismal reception at the box office. No one is going to see Al Gore’s terrible new movie. And – scientifically speaking, at least – they’re really not missing much.
Here are some of Al Gore’s dubious claims rebutted.
Gore is shown visiting cryospheric expert Konrad Steffen.
“Surface melting is shown with dramatic aerial video. Rivers of meltwater form and plunge down into huge holes in the ice sheet called “moulins”.”
“What isn’t mentioned is that this happens every summer, naturally.”
In fact this is a good example of Gore’s favorite cheat: show dramatic footage of a natural event – eg ice melting rapidly – and then leave the viewer to infer that this is another disastrous and unprecedented consequence of man-made climate change. It spares him the risk of telling flat out lies which might get fact-checked later. The viewer’s imagination does all Gore’s dirty work…
Meanwhile, in the real world, remember, Greenland recently recorded its coldest temperature ever measured in July for the Northern Hemisphere.
An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, which follows the ex-VP’s continuing attempts to raise awareness of global warming, made $900,000 across 180 screens on the weekend of August 4-6, according to Box Office Mojo.
But the original made $1,356,387 across just 77 screens at the same point in its run in 2006, leaving Paramount’s confidence in the movie’s appeal looking misplaced.
Munger, who was speaking at an informal investors’ Q & A – recorded here – clearly does not rate Gore’s intelligence or investment acumen.
“Al Gore has come into you fellas business, Munger said. “He has made $3 or $400 million in your business. And he’s not very smart. He smoked a lot of pot as he coaxed through Harvard with a gentleman’s C. But he had one obsessive idea that global warming was a terrible thing and he would protect the world from it,” he explained. [Note: Gentleman’s C is defined by Urban Dictionary as “A grade given to a student (traditionally with wealthy parents) instead of a failing grade.”]
“So his idea when he went into investment counseling is he was not going to put any CO2 in the air,” Meager explained to the investors noting that Gore’s simple strategy of buying only service company stocks enabled the former Vice President to become very rich.
Meager explained: “So he found some partner to go into investment counseling with and says we’re not going to have any (carbon dioxide). But this partner is a value investor and a good one. So what they did is, is Gore hired staff to find people who didn’t put CO2 in the air. Of course that put him into services. Microsoft and all these service companies were just ideally located. And this value investor picked the best service companies. So all of a sudden the clients are making hundreds of millions of dollars and they are paying part of it to Al Gore. Al Gore has hundreds of millions dollars in your profession. And he’s an idiot. It’s an interesting story. And a true one.”
Though the meeting took place in February, it only recently came to light via a report on CNBC.
Unlike its creaky predecessor – basically an extended Powerpoint lecture featuring crap animations of drowning polar bears and a fat, sweating, failed presidential candidate in a suit clambering up onto a hydraulic elevator to make some tendentious, whiney point about a graph – this sequel uses shock, awe and spectacular footage to bludgeon its audience into submission.
A maelstrom of brown, boiling floodwaters, calving glaciers, burning mountainsides and lashing tornadoes, Gore’s production team have pulled out the stops to create a propaganda movie so lavishly convincing it makes Triumph Of The Will look like Snakes On A Plane.
At the heart of the movie is Gore himself – whose caring, nurturing, brow-furrowed sensitivity as he travels the world’s weather disaster zones to marvel at the damage done by man’s selfishness, greed and refusal-to-amend-his-lifestyle (TM) is contrasted with the smirking evil of the movie’s arch-villain, Donald J. Trump. Trump, of course, represents the “Power” to whom the heroic Gore figure is speaking “Truth.”
What is clear, though, even from the two-and-a-half-minute trailer, is that among the things left behind on the cutting room floor are science, integrity, and credibility.
There is, for example, absolutely no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has produced an increase in extreme weather events. In fact tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, bitter winters and extreme precipitation have all either remained much the same or reduced since “global warming” began.
So what Gore is doing here, in other words, is misleading his audience with weather horror porn of extreme events which have nothing at all to do with climate change.
As for the prominently featured wind turbines and solar arrays – these are a blatant attempt to push the expensive, environmentally damaging, inefficient renewables to which green shysters like Gore are ideologically committed but which will make no difference to climate change. Their sole purpose is to enrich, at taxpayers’ expense, a few of the rent-seekers, troughers, crony-capitalists and other charlatans who are leeching off the back of this disgusting $1.5 trillion per annum scam.
Follow the money: this is the real reason Gore has made this movie. And it’s the reason there has been such squealing objection to President Trump’s (actually quite disappointingly modest) attempts to take on the Climate Industrial Complex.
Still, you can tell Trump is headed in the right direction from the kind of people who are attacking him.