From Chocolate Famine to Desertification – How Alarmists Want to Ruin Your New Year

Stuff
BORIS ROESSLER/AFP/Getty

Barely has the year begun and already the climate alarmist propaganda machine is up to its old tricks, trying to scare you with made up science stories promising global warming-related doom and gloom.

First, the great chocolate famine.

Here is MailOnline‘s version:

Experts predict the world could run out of chocolate within 40 years because cacao plants are struggling to survive in warmer climates.

The trees can only grow within approximately 20 degrees north and south of the Equator – and they thrive under specific conditions such as high humidity and abundant rain.

But a temperature rise of just 2.1C over the next 30 years caused by global warming is set to wreak havoc for the plants – and in turn the worldwide chocolate industry, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This nonsense was picked up by several other outlets, including USA Today.

Had they bothered to fact check they would have realized the story was old hat. The original NOAA report was released in 2016 and tweeted out for publicity-grabbing purposes on Valentine’s Day:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

An Impertinent Pup from Snopes Tried to Fact-Check Me on Global Warming. Here’s My Reply…

Snopes
As I predicted, my piece “400 Scientific Papers in 2017  say ‘Global Warming’ is a Myth”, is causing greenie heads to explode like watermelons struck by hollow-point bullets.

Here is an email I got shortly afterwards from a guy at the completely unbiased and apolitical (lol) fact-checking organization Snopes.

Hello James,

I’m a science writer for the fact checking website Snopes.com reporting on your ‘400 studies say climate change is a myth’ exposé. I had a couple of questions about your process:

  • Did you read all (or a fraction) of the 400 studies listed in that post personally or talk to any of the scientists involved?
  • How long did it take to research this piece?
  • Were you able to get an early look at the No Tricks Zone post from 23 October before it was published?

Best,

Alex

This Alex is an impertinent pup, isn’t he?

Since I make it my business not to respond to snarky little tics asking irrelevant questions designed to smear and belittle rather than enlighten, I thought I’d instead deal with the issues he raises here at Breitbart.

I do this for two reasons.

First because publicly humiliating one’s enemies is always fun.

Second, because these climate alarmists use the same old tricks again and again to prop up their junk science scam. It’s always a good idea to expose these tricks, to show the guy behind the curtain pulling all the levers, because once you know what these people’s game is, their dark magic loses its power.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Ship of Fools IV: Another Green Arctic Expedition Scuppered by Ice

ice
Riccardo Bresciani/Pexels

A sailing expedition to the North Pole to raise awareness of global warming has been forced to turn back, 590 nautical miles short of its destination, after the yachts found their passage blocked by large quantities of an unexpected frozen white substance.

According to Arctic Mission’s website:

A meeting of the four skippers was held led by Erik de Jong, with Pen Hadow present, and it was agreed further northward progress would increase considerably the risks to the expedition, with very limited scientific reward. The decision to head south, back to an area of less concentrated sea ice in the vicinity of 79 degrees 30 minutes North, was made at 18.30 (Alaskan time).

Concentrated sea ice? In the Arctic Circle? Whoever would have imagined?

As usual, on these occasions, the expedition leaders are covering their embarrassment by billing their failure as a great success.

Arctic Mission has undertaken an extensive oceanographic, wildlife and ecosystem research programme during the voyage, led by Tim Gordon of the University of Exeter (UK). This has included work on acoustic ecology, copepod distributions and physiology, microplastic pollution surveying, inorganic carbon chemistry, seabird range expansion and microbial DNA sequencing. Scientific findings will be released following comprehensive data analysis and formal publication in peer-reviewed journals in 2018/19.

It is believed Arctic Mission has sailed further north from the coastlines surrounding the Arctic Ocean than any vessel in history without icebreaker support.

Well maybe. But that wasn’t the original point of the expedition when it was announced in the Sunday Times earlier this summer:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Greenmail: How 13 Lords of Eco Lunacy Tried to Gag The Times

So runs the threat in a menacing private letter to the Times‘s editor signed by no fewer than 13 members of Britain’s House of Lords, including the Bishop of London and the former Astronomer Royal.

Even by alarmist standards, its tone of shrill petulance, bullying intolerance and aggrieved self-righteousness is quite deliciously excruciating.

As Editor, you are of course entitled to take whatever editorial line you feel is appropriate. Are you aware, however, that you may seriously be compromising The Times‘s reputation by pursuing a line that cleaves so tightly to a particular, and which is based on such flimsy evidence?

The letter bears the hallmarks of Richard Black, formerly a BBC Environmental correspondent, who now runs a well-funded climate lobby group with links to the European Union. Many of the letter’s signatories are also patrons of his green propaganda non-profit, among them Lord Chartres (the Bishop of London), Lord Rees (formerly the Astronomer Royal), Lord Puttnam (a film producer) and Lord Oxburgh (former chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology committee).

It is also signed by Lord Krebs (former chairman of the Food Standards Agency) and Lord Stern (the accountant behind the multiply discredited Stern Report).

What’s extraordinary about the letter is the way it makes so much fuss about so very little. The Times once ran an editorial (about the Rolling Stones drug bust in the Sixties) titled “Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?” This is exactly what Black and his pliant menagerie of peers are doing here.

The letter accuses the Times of having become a “laughing stock”, and of “systematically [undermining] the credibility of climate science”, and of running “substandard news stories and opinion pieces.”

But when you examine the articles these lords claim to have found so outrageously offensive, you realise that they are perfectly accurate and sensible pieces of reportage.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Obama/RICO Professor Investigated: You Don’t Need to Be a Crook to Work in Climate Science but…

This is ever so sad and in no way to be used by climate skeptics as an excuse to laugh.

As we reported at Breitbart last year, Shukla was caught topping up his modest $250,000 GMU professorial salary with fees from his non-profit Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES). From 2012 to 2014, Shukla and his wife were paid by the IGES $1.5 million for their part time work.

Now Shukla is being investigated by House Science Committee chairman Lamar Smith.

According to [House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith]’s letter, the audit “appears to reveal that Dr. Shukla engaged in what is referred to as ‘double dipping.’ In other words, he received his full salary at GMU, while working full time at IGES and receiving a full salary there.”

Mr. Smith cites a memo from the school’s internal auditor in claiming that Mr. Shukla appeared to violate the university’s policy on outside employment and paid consulting. The professor received $511,410 in combined compensation from the school and IGES in 2014, according to Mr. Smith, “without ever receiving the appropriate permission from GMU officials.”

Some cynics are saying that this is precisely the sort of low-down behaviour we have come to expect from the climate scamster fraternity. They point, for example, to identity thieving fraudster Peter Gleick; Rajendra “Dr Octopus” Pachauri (the former IPCC chief recently charged with sexual harrassment); Al Gore (who continues to deny having acted like a “crazed sex poodle” towards some hapless masseuse who’d come to manipulate his whale-like physique); former UK Energy Secretary Chris Huhne (jailed for perjury); former MP and assiduous green trougher Tim Yeo who lost his libel case against a newspaper after the judge found that his evidence was “implausible”, “unreliable”, “not honest”,”dishonest”, “untruthful”, “untrue” and “unworthy of belief”; and, of course, “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing” Phil “Climategate” Jones of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of Easy Access.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

NOAA Attempts to Hide the Pause in Global Warming: The Most Disgraceful Cover-Up Since Climategate

Despite being a public, taxpayer-funded institution, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) insists that it is under no obligation to provide the research papers, as demanded in a subpoena by Rep Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

Gosh. What vital information of national secrecy importance could NOAA possibly have to hide?

That question is entirely rhetorical, by the way. The answer is obvious – well known to every one within the climate change research community. And the whole business stinks. When these documents are released, as eventually they surely must be, what will become evident is that this represents the most disgraceful official cover-up by the politicized science establishment since the release of the Climategate emails.

At the root of the issue is the inconvenient truth that there has been no “global warming” since January 1997.

This is clearly shown by the most reliable global temperature dataset – the RSS satellite records – and was even grudgingly acknowledged in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment report. While still insisting that there has been a slight warming – an increase, since 1998, of around 0.05 degrees C per decade – the IPCC had in all honesty to admit that this is smaller than the 0.1 degrees C error range for thermometer readings, and consequently statistically insignificant.

But if there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years how can alarmist proselytisers like President Obama and John Kerry possibly hope to convince an increasingly skeptical public that this apparently non-existent problem yet remains the most pressing concern of our age?”

Step forward the Obama administration’s helpful friends at NOAA. It’s not supposed to be a politicized institution: its job is to do science, not propaganda. But the memo must have been missed by NOAA scientists Thomas Karl and Thomas Peterson who, in May this year, published a “study” so favourable to the alarmist cause it might just as well have been scripted by Al Gore and Greenpeace, with a royal foreword by the Prince of Wales, and a blessing from Pope Francis.

“Data show no slowdown in recent global warming” declared NOAA’s press release. “The Pause”, in other words, was just the construct of a few warped deniers’ twisted imaginations.

Naturally this new “evidence” was seized on with alacrity by the usual media suspects.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Mann v Steyn: If This Trial Ever Goes ahead, Global Warming Is Toast

Mark Steyn has published his latest brief in his protracted court case with discredited climate scientist Michael Mann (who is suing him for libel) and it’s a corker.

Here’s a sample:

The audacity of the falsehoods in Mann’s court pleadings is breathtaking. For example, on page 19 of his brief below dated January 18, 2013, he cites the international panel chaired by the eminent scientist Lord Oxburgh, FRS as one of the bodies that “exonerated” him, whereas on page 235 of Mann’s own book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, he states explicitly that “our own work did not fall within the remit of the committee and the hockey stick was not mentioned in the report.” It is deeply disturbing that a plaintiff should make such fraudulent claims in his legal pleadings. It is even more disturbing that the first such fraudulent claim – to be a Nobel Laureate and thus in the same pantheon as Banting, Einstein, and the Curies – should have led to the amended complaint and the procedural delays that then followed. It would be even more profoundly damaging were his other transparently false claims to be entertained for another two years before trial.

It is clear from the ease with which Mann lies about things that would not withstand ten minutes of scrutiny in a courtroom that he has no intention of proceeding to trial.”

For the full background to the case, read this. But all you really need to know is that Michael Mann is exploiting the flaws in the US legal system to try to draw out proceedings as long as possible in order to exhaust – or bankrupt – Steyn into submission.

Unfortunately for Mann he picked the wrong victim. Steyn is a fighter who knows his way round the courts having battled a similarly vexatious and vindictive case in Canada when he was accused of Islamophobia – or some similar nonsense – by something called the Ontario Human Rights Committee. Plus, Steyn is astute enough to appreciate exactly what’s at stake here.

This isn’t about hurt feelings or a damaged professional reputation, let alone an ill-chosen and imprecise turn of phrase. It’s about the very principle of freedom of speech.

And not just about freedom of speech either, important though that is.

This, if Steyn is successful, could be the moment the dam bursts: the one where the global establishment is finally forced to acknowledge the fraudulence, the corruption, the mendacity, the trickery, the deception, the junk science, the big money and the official complicity which for the last two or three decades have been underpinning the Great Climate Change Scam.

Up till now the response of the climate alarmist establishment (and that would include everyone from the Obama administration to the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia to the Royal Society and NASA GISS to the IPCC to the Prince of Wales to Vice and Grist to John Podesta, Tom Steyer and Michael Mann) in the face of criticism has been to deny, rebuff, bully, insist, conceal, bluster, misrepresent and sue.

They have got away with it not least because they are backed by such vast sums of money – far in excess of anything climate sceptical scientists receive, not just from governments and the United Nations and the European Union but also through various rich and powerful foundations which left-wing billionaire donors use as a political laundering process. (It’s all there in this Senate Minority Report).

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Inventor of Mann-made global warming feels the heat
  2. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  3. Michael Mann as innocent as OJ – possibly more so – finds internal Penn State investigation
  4. Climategate: CRU scientists deserve Nobel Prizes – and very probably Knighthoods too – claims reasonable and unbiased New Scientist magazine

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Press regulation only helps the bad guys

Should the state protect the Establishment?

Press regulation? Bring it on!

Should the state be doing more to protect the interests of the corrupt, powerful, mendacious, rapacious, self-serving establishment? I don’t think so. And neither, I suspect, do the vast majority of those useful idiots agitating for more stringent curbs on the media. Yet if Leveson’s statutory regulations are implemented, that will certainly be the net result. How do I know? Because I’ve experienced for myself the results of this law of unintended consequences at the hands of our current regulator the Press Complaints Commission.

Don’t get me wrong: I believe the PCC is run by decent, fair-minded people anxious to strike a balance between the need to preserve a free press and the need to defend the vulnerable from its wilder excesses. Its decisions – as I can personally testify – are often very sensible, sometimes even bravely counter-intuitive. I was genuinely surprised when it found in my favour after a complaint by the University of East Anglia. This wasn’t because I didn’t believe in the strength of my case. Rather, it was because the current establishment viewpoint – everywhere from the print media and television to the seats of academe to organisations like the Institute of Chartered Surveyors to local and national government – is so heavily biased in favour of the “man-made global warming consensus” that I didn’t think I’d get a fair hearing.

But I did. And that is to the PCC’s credit.

What isn’t to the PCC’s credit is the way it is used by vested interests as a bully pulpit to harass and intimidate journalists whose opinions those vested interests find inconvenient.

A journalist friend of mine suffers this with distressing frequency. Scarcely a month goes by when he is not being asked by his newspaper’s lawyer to provide detailed rebuttals to some vexatious complaint or other which has been made against him by some well-funded lobbyist on behalf of some dodgy industry or organisation – usually connected with the great Climate Change Gravy Train. These rebuttals take time. Unpaid time. My own response to the UEA’s complaint took up most of a weekend I’d been hoping to spend with my son back from boarding school. And to what end? All so that, eventually, the PCC could come to the conclusion that I had no case to answer; in other words, that this case should never have been brought.

Too right it bloody shouldn’t. In Climategate, the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit was caught red-handed in one of the biggest and justly notorious cases of malfeasance, incompetence and corruption in science history. Its department – the recipient of over £13 million in government grants: ie OUR money – was implicated in everything from the illegal breach of FOI laws to the persecution and harassment of dissenting scientists to the losing of vital data to the abuse of the scientific method. And never mind that it was supposedly vindicated by a number of whitewash inquiries: the naked truth remains – as authors such as Andrew Montford have clearly and unimpeachably demonstrated in books like Hiding The Decline – that UEA’s the CRU, several of its staff, and a number of their counterparts in the US, Australia and New Zealand were quite clearly guilty as sin.

Could the PCC have been expected to know this in advance? Probably not. Perhaps it imagined that the UEA was a thoroughly respectable institution which would never dream of vexatiously persecuting an innocent journalist for telling the truth. But, in a way, that only makes the point I’m trying to argue here even stronger, viz: whether unwittingly or not, our current media regulation system is being used, by and large, not to protect the little man from the ugly establishment but as a cynical way for that ugly establishment to try to entrench its power.

By “ugly establishment” I don’t, of course, mean the old, pretend-powerful establishment of popular caricature (belted earls, retired colonels from Tunbridge Wells, men in bowler hats, etc) . I mean the real establishment that rose to prominence under Tony Blair and now increasingly dominates our culture: the activist judges, the media lefty-luvvies, the bien-pensant axis of the Guardian and the BBC, the post-normal scientists, the corporatists and banksters. These are the types agitating most heavily for Leveson style regulation because they’re the ones who are not only going to be implementing it but whose grubby dealings are most likely to be concealed by it.

Toby Young – late of this parish and much-missed – summed it up perfectly in a Tweet today:

Problem with #leveson is that the people he wants to “guard the guardians” are the same people the guardians are supposed to keep in check.

Amen, bro. Press regulation is already quite dangerous and counterproductive enough as it is. Imagine how much more dangerous it would be if it actually had teeth.

Related posts:

  1. North reports the Press Complaints Commission to the Press Complaints Commission
  2. UEA: the sweet smell of napalm in the morning…
  3. Why money-printing is like ‘global warming’
  4. Eat local organic food if you like, but don’t kid yourself that it’s ‘green’

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Fakegate

February 20, 2012

I wasn’t going to write about yesterday’s Heartland Institute shock-horror revelations in the Guardian because I thought it was a non-story. “Independent libertarian think-tank spends trifling* sums of money to counter the state’s liberal-left propaganda”. Gosh, hold the front page. Run it next to the story about the Pope being caught worshipping regularly in Rome and the photograph of a bear pooping behind a tree…

Since then, though, it has got much more interesting. Turns out that at least some of the “leaked” documents purporting to show the round, unvarnished face of capitalist, anti-science evil may have been faked.

Watts Up With That has the details:

My favourite giveaway clue that Watts-y has spotted is this one:

6. Key sentences are rather clumsily written and some make no sense. This contrasts with purposeful language in the other documents. This one sentence in particular has gotten a lot of attention:

His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

I can’t imagine pitching “…dissuading teachers from teaching science.” to a board of directors at a meeting. It is a sure recipe for a public relations nightmare.

No, indeed. If you’re going to pretend to be one of the “enemy” at least have the intelligence to try to think like the “enemy” would. I know this is going to come as a major shock to the kind of foam-flecked, cerebrally-deficient eco-zealots who scrawl in red crayons for DeSmog blog or earn lavish salaries as propaganda shills for the Grantham Institute or fester at the Guardian’s environment pages, but here’s an amazing fact…

Ready for your amazing fact, fruit loop eco-loons?

OK. Here goes.

We climate realists don’t think of ourselves as anti-science.

No, really. We think we’re pro-science. That’s what we want science teachers to teach kids in schools: hard science – physics, chemistry, biology. Stuff that’s empirical. Theories that are falsifiable. Not the kind of junk science they teach in places like the school of “environmental” “science” at comedy institutions like the “University” of East Anglia. Because that’s not science at all. It’s computer-modelling, projection, which is more akin to necromancy.

So, next time you try to fake your Protocols of the Elders of Climategate document, guys, at least try to credit the people you’re trying to smear with a bit of integrity. Not everyone is like you, you realise?

* To give you an idea how trifling is the amount spent funding climate scepticism relative to the amount spent by the state nurturing climate alarmism, consider this horrifying revelation at Bishop Hill, which in turn came from Not A Lot Of People Know That:

I can…reveal that, during the financial year 2009/10 (the most recent for which the data is available), Research Council spending on “climate change research and training” amounted to £234 million. This analysis was provided by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) on behalf of Research Councils UK (RCUK).

£234 million in Britain alone? And still these junk-scientist doom-mongers can’t manage to amass sufficient evidence to win an argument against a handful of ill-funded bloggers. Says it all, really.

UPDATE

And here’s Jo Nova, putting those shocking Heartland Institute funds for climate sceptics in their proper perspective….

Related posts:

  1. Gore fakes ‘proof’ of Man Made Global Warming shock
  2. The BBC is at least a thousand times more evil and dangerous than Rupert Murdoch
  3. Climategate: the IPCC is over says UEA climate scientist
  4. Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief

One thought on “Fakegate”

  1. Thesdagas says:21st February 2012 at 4:35 pmThe Reason for Veteran Suicideshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVUHalR8P0I&feature=player_embedded

    Winner of Best Short Film of the Year and Best Editing for the Mitten Movie Project 2010, Royal Oak, MI
    Official Selection of the 2010 Blue Water Film Festival
    Official Selection of the 2011 Detroit Independent Film Festival, Central Florida Film Festival, Detroit Windsor International Film Festival, DC Shorts Film Festival

    People think their soldiers return home to parades. I know better. And it’s time you all learn.

    This is the reason for veteran suicides. Broken families. Broken homes. Children legally kidnapped from their capable fathers due to bitterness and hatred from a failed marriage. When you rip children away from their parents, you commit the soul murder of two human beings: The child who will never know the true fullness of life, and the parent who loses their deepest connection with their kid.

    This is the definitive director’s cut of “Purple Heart’s Final Beat,” color corrected and improved from its original version with a new introduction.

    Join the Fight for Equality in Parenting!
    SecondClassCitizen.org
    LightcraftEntertainment.com

    Suicide statistics gathered and verified by CBS.
    All end statistics were verified and collected by a 20-year combat veteran sergeant in the US Army. Non-public records were used in the gathering of these statistics.
    The federal government does not acknowledge the true numbers and its own statistics do not include Coast Guard, Reserve or National Guard. The public figure of 4.3% veteran divorce rate released is a cover up by the Pentagon. After all, if the standard rate for the population is 50%, how could there be such a drastic difference?

Comments are closed.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations