Gaia Beats Mars: How Our Military Are Being Turned into Green Eco-Wussies

Yes. That makes sense. Clearly one of the main priorities in any war of attrition should be to do everything possible to protect your enemies’ lives, wellbeing and resources.

Some might argue that a merciless death cult which now controls swathes of Iraq and Syria and a population of around 10 million, which makes $2 billion a year from oil and extortion, which rapes and enslaves girls as young as eight, tortures and kills prisoners, chucks gay men off buildings, and is committed to the destruction of Western civilisation, ought not to be treated with kid gloves.

But wiser souls in the Obama administration and at higher levels of the US military have clearly taken a more enlightened, eco-sensitive position: yes, Islamic State may behave inappropriately on occasion, but that is definitely no excuse to engage in tactical bombing operations which may cause serious damage to infrastructure, make the sand in the area all oily and black and sticky for miles around, and release into the atmosphere particles which not only could give nearby jihadis asthma attacks but could also drastically increase the Syria region’s carbon footprint, possibly causing global warming to increase by 0.0000000000000000000000001 degree c by the end of the century.

If only the Allies had applied a similarly enlightened policy in World War II we’d all be in a much better place I’m sure.

It would have meant, for example, that there would have been no environmentally insensitive bombing of oil refineries like the ones in Romania. Some Germans – including fighter ace Adolf Galland; head of the Luftwaffe Hermann Göring; and armaments minister Albert Speer – believed that without the Oil Campaign Hitler might have won.

But in environmental terms, perhaps a Nazi victory would have been for the best. Apart from modern day California, Nazi Germany was almost certainly the most eco-friendly state on earth: the first to ban smoking on public transport; the first to take animal rights seriously (Göring once threatened to send people found guilty of animal experimentation to the death camps); the first to pass national environmental laws; the first to champion organic food and vegetarianism.

Nazi Germans also put a great deal of thought about what to do with the population problem – and, at Wannsee, how to solve it. They really cared about open spaces and overcrowding (Lebensraum).

And they weren’t afraid to put their money where their mouth was, either: if the Germans had won the war, you can bet your bottom Reichsmark that there would be no pussy-footing around at next week’s Paris eco-summit. It would be a case of reduce your carbon emissions, schnell – or off to the death camps.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Global Warming Caused Hitler

This novel theory, first reported on in an American newspaper in 1941, has just resurfaced in the wake of claims by John Kerry and others that climate change was responsible for creating ISIS. Researchers were naturally keen to discover whether there was any precedent for such “global warming” related idiocy. And indeed it turns out that there was.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Polar Bears Doing Great, Except in Greenies’ Fantasy Computer Models

Which version of events should we believe?

Well that all depends on where you prefer to place your trust: on reality or on computer models concocted by activists who desperately want the polar bear to retain its status as the ursine victim of the man-made global warming apocalypse.

If you prefer to go with reality, here’s the good news from Susan Crockford, who puts the global polar bear population at a very healthy 26,000. This would mean, she has noted before, that the population has increased by around 4,200 since 2001.

Ironically, the IUCN—the world’s leading conservation monitoring body, responsible for producing the “Red List” which classifies endangered species—agrees with her estimates. What it won’t do is admit that the news is good. (Well, good if you think having lots of extra polar bears is good. I’m not so sure. I’d agree with my friend Steven Crowder that actually they are evil: one of only two species—the other being the Saltwater crocodile—which deliberately hunts down human beings as prey).

There are two main reasons for this discrepancy of opinion.

The first is that the doomsday scenario for polar bears comes, not from real-world observation but from computer-modeled predictions of what might happen in the future if the ice caps melt, etc. Like all computer models—global warming—these have little if any bearing on reality.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Science Says: Evil Coral Reefs Acidify Oceans

It seems that Ocean Acidification is not, after all, the result of man’s selfishness and greed and refusal to amend his lifestyle. Apparently, according to New Scientist, it’s caused by those hateful Gaia-raping monstrosities we call coral reefs:

Acidic water may be a sign of healthy corals, says a new study, muddying the waters still further on our understanding of how coral reefs might react to climate change.

Andreas Andersson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and his colleagues carefully monitored a coral reef in Bermuda for five years, and found that spikes in acidity were linked to increased reef growth.

“At first we were really puzzled by this,” says Andersson. “It’s completely the opposite to what we would expect in an ocean-acidification scenario.”

Andersson’s puzzlement is understandable, given the plethora of articles over the last few years that have tried to big up ocean acidification as the “evil twin” of climate change and inevitably trying to pin the blame on man.

Read the rest at Brietbart.

American Meteorological Society: Investigating NOAA’s Dodgy Scientists Is ‘Intimidation’

It thinks that NOAA’s dodgy, data-fudging, parti-pris scientists should be allowed to go on spending taxpayers’ money on green propaganda unimpeded by the scrutiny of pesky skeptics like Rep Lamar Smith (R-Tex).

Here’s how the AMS’s executive director, Keith L Seitter, puts it in an open letter to the congressman:

Read the rest at Breitbart.

China Shows How Much It Cares about Climate Change: With a Single, Upraised Finger

According to shock data  released, without fanfare, by China’s statistical agency, its coal use has been about 17 per cent higher per year than earlier official figures admitted. This may have pumped an extra billion tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere – more than the total greenhouse gas output of the entire German economy.

In 2012, China burned through an extra 600 million tons of coal: about 70 per cent of the amount used annually by the US.

The new figures make a nonsense of China’s publicly-expressed commitment to wage war on climate change.

Only two days ago, Chinese president Xi Jinping emerged from a summit with French president Francois Hollande, calling for “an ambitious and legally binding deal” at the forthcoming COP21 climate talks being staged by the UN in Paris later this month.

This moved Greenpeace China’s Li Shuo to declare it “encouraging to see the ball rolling and diplomacy nudging us a small step forward”. He added:

“Moreover, with the recent decline in coal consumption and robust renewable energy development, China is positioning itself at the front of climate leadership. This is drastically different from six years ago in Copenhagen.”

We now know that this was wishful thinking.

Not that we couldn’t have guessed this anyway. China’s policy on CO2 emissions is – and always has been – a case of “tell the gullible Gwailo whatever they want to hear – then carry on building coal-fired power stations regardless.”

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Study: Global Warming Will Kill Your Sex Life

The study – called Maybe Next Month? Temperature Shocks, Climate Change, and Dynamic Adjustments in Birth Rates – examined how birth rates change over time in the US, depending on the weather.

What it found is that on days where the temperature exceeded 80 degrees F there was a large decline in births eight to ten months later.

Though the researchers found that the drop off was mitigated slightly by couples making up for lost time – as shown by a subsequent rise in the birth rate – this increase still wasn’t quite enough to make up for all the babies who would have been bred if the hot weather hadn’t happened.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

NASA Shock Study: Antarctica Is Growing Not Shrinking

The study – by an organization not hitherto noted for playing down environmental scares – will come as a major blow climate alarmists.  For decades, they have cited Antarctica as one of the bellwethers of global warming catastrophe and have claimed – as the IPCC’s most recent Assessment Report did – that its land ice mass was slowly melting into the sea.

But the satellite measurements used in the latest NASA report tell a different story. Unlike previous studies – many largely based on guesswork because the continent is so vast and inhospitable, meaning that data is extremely limited – they use satellite altimeters to calculate changes in the surface height of the ice. What they show is that the amount of ice lost by glaciers collapsing into the sea has been exceeded by the gain in ice mass from accumulated snow.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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.

Enron Environmentalism: The Carbon Credits Scam Pumps Millions of Tonnes More Greenhouse Gases into the Atmosphere

As well as pumping much as 600 million tonnes more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the carbon credits scheme has been abused by countries like Russia and the Ukraine which have used them as a money making scam.

Vladyslav Zhezherin, one of the co-authors of the study by the Stockholm Environment Institute says:

“This was like printing money.”

Another co-author Anja Kollmuss has told BBC News.

“We were surprised ourselves by the extent [of the fraud], we didn’t expect such a large number.”

“What went on was that these countries could approve these projects by themselves there was no international oversight, in particular Russia and the Ukraine didn’t have any incentive to guarantee the quality of these credits.”

To which the two obvious questions are:

Have any of these people actually been to Russia or the Ukraine?


This stuff that these greenies have been smoking sounds totally amazing. How do we go about getting some?

The corruption they describe is by no means a recent thing. It dates back to Enron whose entire business model was based on dodgy carbon credits, which it used not to save the planet but to close down its rivals in the coal industry.

Read the rest at Breitbart.