Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris – Claim ‘Climate Hustle’ film is ‘full of lies’ – without seeing it – Warn skeptics may ‘derail’ UN treaty

The Australian reports:

Paris climate talks: Greens want muzzle on ‘climate deniers’


Graham Lloyd – Environment Editor

Sydney: Green groups want alternative views on climate science silenced in Paris, with a call for delegates with contrarian opinions to be ejected from the UN talks.

Sceptic groups such as the Heartland Institute have started to arrive in the French capital, sparking fears among environment groups that they will derail proceedings using funds from fossil fuel interests.

A new documentary, Climate Hustle, was due to be premiered in Paris tonight (Monday). Producers claim it will be for nonbelievers what Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth was for the converted.

Climate change action lobby group SumOfUs has pushed back with an international campaign to raise funds for a counter offensive.

The group has planned a major advertising campaign in France’s biggest-selling newspapers.

It has called on UN organisers to revoke the conference credentials “of the most disingenuous ­climate deniers”.

A fundraising letter, sent to Australian recipients from Paris, said “an army of polluter-funded global warming deniers have just arrived and are threatening to ­derail a serious international agreement”. It said some of the “world’s most notorious climate deniers” had crashed the French proceedings “in a last-minute ­attempt to derail the whole thing”.

“The Heartland Institute is running a full-on ‘counter conference’ of lying climate deniers and phony ‘scientists’,” SumOfUs said.

“One notorious oil industry-funded climate denier is debuting a documentary film full of lies and misinformation. (Climate Depot Note on Climate Hustle: This is a completely false. Climate Hustle movie was fully funded by the support of roughly 1,500 citizen supporters. More information is available at

“We are even hearing that James Inhofe — the US senator who wrote a book calling global warming the ‘greatest hoax ever perpetrated’ — is on his way.”

Tensions are heightened as the Paris talks for a global agreement enter their final week with deep ­divisions remaining over the target for global temperature rises, how national promises should be policed, who should pay and how often the process should be reviewed.

Within the Paris conference, there has been little debate about the state of climate science.

The question has been whether to limit rises to 2C or 1.5C, with Australia supporting the mention of a 1.5C target in the official text. But outside the conference, at venues in the centre of Paris, has been a who’s who of contrarian climate science personalities.

A three-day conference last week included presentations from Bob Carter, professor Murry Salby, professor Ian Plimer, Viscount Monckton and internat­ional journalist Donna Laframboise.

Dr Carter said the measures used by climate change believers could be explained by “normal natural variation”.


Related Links:

Skeptical Climate Documentary Set to Rock UN Climate Summit – ‘Climate Hustle’ To Have Red Carpet Premiere in Paris

Morano on TV on why ‘Climate Hustle’ is different from other docs: ‘Comedy!’ ‘I want people to go see this film and laugh! And be entertained!’

Watch: Morano discusses upcoming premiere of ‘Climate Hustle’ in Paris at UN Summit

Read more:


1,239 Responses

  1. It seems very strange that people who are so convinced that truth is on their side, would be so scared of hearing an alternative view, that they want to ban them. Its like the Vatican wanting to remove all Atheists from a Christmas service, just in case they say that God doesn’t exist!
    Quite looking forward to seeing this movie – ironic that without the activists highlighting it, I would never have known it existed!

    1. Normally you’d want the opposition which has ludicrous views to talk a lot – and embarrass themselves. In my country currently people warmed a bit up to nationalists because of the crazy actions on the left… but just let the nationalists speak (especially when they feel comfortable) and they immediately destroy themselves with gross prejudice, advocacy for violence and even genocide.


              The authors of the NCA report (and NOAA) want us to believe that sea level may rise as much as 6.6 feet by 2100 (86 years from now), a rate of sea level rise of 7.7 feet per century! That’s about twice the rate at which sea level rose while the huge Ice Age ice sheets melted under warming of tens of degrees per century. So where do the so-called scientists of this report think all this water will come from? Those huge Ice Age ice sheets no longer exist, so the only possible source is melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets? How likely is it that a 0.006% rise in CO2 is going to melt a significant portion of the Antarctic ice sheet? Probably zero to none. Why couldn’t the so-called scientists who authored the NCA report do the simple math? If they had even read the literature, this analysis has already been published (Morner, 2010).


              1. West Antarctica Glaciers Collapsing, Adding to Sea-Level Rise

                Scientists warn that the Thwaites glacier is sliding into the ocean.

                By Brian Clark Howard, National Geographic

                PUBLISHED TUE MAY 13 13:12:00 EDT 2014

                A massive glacier system in West Antarctica has started collapsing because of global warming and will contribute to significant worldwide sea-level rise, two teams of scientists warn in a pair of major studies released Monday.

                Scientists had previously thought the two-mile-thick (3.2 kilometers) glacier system would remain stable for thousands of years, but new research suggests a faster time frame for melting.

                A rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in irreversible decline and will sink into the sea, scientists at the University of California, Irvine and NASA reported Monday.

                “This retreat will have major implications for sea-level rise worldwide,” saidEric Rignot, a UC-Irvine Earth science professor and lead author of a study to be published in a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

            1. “Well you won’t mind then if we harvest the bodies of denialists who are
              found hanging from trees for use as fish food and fertilizer”.

              You would be a disappointment to your heroes of the past if you forgot to mention lampshades and soap.

      1. Actually, nationalism continues to be on the rise all across Europe. A result of the violence, crime and increased welfare roles that third world immigration has brought about across the continent. Sadly, people like you are more concerned with being tolerant to the people that are turning your countries into violent hell holes then you are about the safety of your countrymen or holding on to your cultures. Hopefully the nationalists will continue to rise and marginalize you brainwashed lemmings.

        1. See, exactly like piotrogowski said, just let you guys talk and notice the racism, call to violence and talk of genocide. Oh wait, that’s not what you did. You actually make a lot of sense.

          1. Pio is just another left wing nut job who will tell you third world immigration is a great gain for Europe even though the statistics say otherwise. Take Sweden for example, where prior to Muslim immigration rape was almost unheard of, post Muslim immigration rape has skyrocketed ( Did Swedish men all of a sudden become sexually crazed deviants? I think not. Yet pio will still stump for the outsiders, forsaking his own kind. Of course that is assuming Pio is not one of the outsiders.

    2. For what it is worth I have never heard that the Vatican wants to remove all atheists from any Christmas service. To the contrary, the Catholic Church and most all Christian churches welcome everyone that behaves decently. I did not capitalize atheist because it is not a proper noun. I recognize that for some people it is a sort of religion and if it becomes more organized I will be happy to capitalize it. Of course, if it becomes organized the irony would be that it could no longer seek removal of religious symbols as the lack of symbols would be endorsement of the Atheist religion.

            1. Nah – he’s a professional troll. He’s a Palestinian living in Canada. Worked as a janitor at a High School in Ontario. Was arrested and (possibly) jailed for making threats against President Bush, as his trolling “went dark” for a period of time. He also posts as Scott Nudds, and Scott Douglas.

          1. Why do you guys have to manipulate data if the science is on your side? Why have none of your predictions of catastrophe come to pass? Why do Hollywood hypocrites jet set the corners of the earth while telling us common folk to bicycle to work?
            Why are less and less people buying into the narrative with each passing year?
            Again, why manipulate the data…doesn’t that give you pause?

    1. Since ignoring the warming of the globe will result in a holocaust, there is no real distinction to be made between holocaust denial and warming denial.

      Global Warming denial is an act of treason against nature and man, and will be punished by execution in the no too distant future.

          1. Just out of curiosity…. how do you KNOW as a “True Believer” that a slight warming of the atmosphere and increased CO2 will amount to the equivalent of a “holocaust”????

            Due to increased CO2, plant growth is one the rise and all predicted “holocaust’ activities of the planet (more powerful more frequent hurricanes, slowing or stopping of the Gulf Stream, snow a thing of the past (circa 2000), increased droughts and wild fires, coastal and low lying areas as well as barrier and island nations underwater…. all the horrible predictions based upon “Catastrophic AGM Theory” have not materialized over the course of the last 30 or so years as we were firewarned by the “climate experts”. So what EXACTLY makes you believe that a “warming holocaust” is in store??? You frackin’ fools are nothing more than the bearded robed figure in the old comics holding a sign stating “THE END IS NEAR!” and when it actually doesn’t occur you simply shuffle THE END further down the time line…. which is now so distant none of us will live to see nor be able to tell you how full of shite you were when it finally arrives. How convenient.

      1. I guess we should take you at your word and accept that you speak for the GW alarmists. That being said I then see no reason why the rest of the world should not begin to hunt down all GW alarmists and end them NOW. You have just declared war on behalf of you leftists after all.

    1. Or, you are “liquidated.”

      On August 7, 1948, the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced that from that point on Lysenkoism would be taught as “the only correct theory”. Soviet scientists were forced to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko’s research. Criticism of Lysenko was denounced as “bourgeois” or “fascist”, and analogous “non-bourgeois” theories also flourished in other fields in the Soviet academy at this time. Interestingly, perhaps the only opponents of Lysenkoism during Stalin’s lifetime to escape liquidation came from the small community of Soviet nuclear physicists: as Tony Judt has observed, “It is significant that Stalin left his nuclear physicists alone and never presumed to second guess their calculations. Stalin may well have been mad but he was not stupid.”

          1. I’ve never seen any scientist claim that any weather anomaly was due to global warming.

            They all go out of their way to say that no single weather event can be so attributed, and add that the anomaly is consistent with what is anticipated to result from global warming.

            So why do you feel a need to lie about such things Greenheritic?

            Are you mentally ill?

            1. You obviously are not paying attention. We have heard nearly every hurricane blamed on Global Warming, even mass shootings and civil unrest is being blamed on GW.

              Making up your facts, does not make them facts. It would appear that GW is your religion – even your choice of nouns speaks more of a religious connotation rather than any scientific debate. “Denier”, “Greenheritic” – I’m surprised you haven’t thrown down “Blasphemer” yet.

              We can debate the speed of light, the mass of an electron – yet GWT demand to silence any debate on climate change. This then, is apparently a religious debate, and has nothing to do with science; as any “Denier” is more than willing to discuss actual satellite telemetry, and unbiased earthbound data.

              1. “We have heard nearly every hurricane blamed on Global Warming, even mass shootings and civil unrest is being blamed on GW.” – Hodar

                Watching Fox news makes you stupid.

                1. Very original. Another display of your inferior intellect. Nothing more than an automaton programmed by your masters to spout off the same inane nonsense over and over and over again.

                    1. Why are you arguing with them? You might as well beat your head against a brick wall for all the good it will do this lot. They’re projecting all their own insecurities and twisting everything you say for which my children and grandchildren will undoubtedly suffer in generations to come. We know climate change to be a fact now and, because their stubborn ego wont allow them to concede along with many of them being too afraid to face up to the truth, the rest of us have to bear the brunt of their inaction.

                      Then they have the gall to continually decry it as a political issue of the left like parrots, despite it being something which effects us all universally. All because they selfishly want to the bidding of big business leaders, many of who wont be around in years to come after laughing themselves all the way to the bank (with a lot of that laughter directed towards their low-grade sycophants who got them there).

                      No doubt someone may reply to this with some inarticulate response that will be liked by the minions (who revel in generic unoriginality) here telling me I’m being agressive. Well yes; because I’m angry. Storms and floods destroying livelihoods, along with our collective future going down the pan for generations to come. All for what? Selfish greed propped up by a shower of moral cowards.

      1. The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively; as opposed to our 390 ppmv today. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.

        1. Yep, and since it’s so obvious, they clearly have another agenda. (Global totalitarianism) You could give them all the evidence in the world and they will continue to lie about the science.

          “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels

          1. Valid research is in fact leaning in the direction that perceived climate anomalies tend to be cyclic and heliocentric rather than in any way anthropogenic via (relative) miniscule anthropogenic contributions of C02 to perceived greenhouse anomalies. Milankovitch rotational anomalies (axial tilt & precession – orbital forcing) as well as Svensmark’s efforts around Cosmoclimatology were also (in my humble opinion) preoperational catalysts to CERN CLOUD (radiation driven particle cluster nucleation and cloud formation) and similar efforts showing the true cyclic nature of what is perceived to be anomalous climate change. It amazes me that with the mountains of contradictory evidence available, not to mention the complete and utter failure of the IPCCs models, the IPCC and Gore are still able to perpetrate the prodigious myth that a small fractional amount of of anthropogenic atmospherically suspended CO2 is somehow the culprit. AGW is in fact the hoax of the century; or of a couple of centuries.

            1. Poor Stefan. He just doesn’t seem to get it that if it were the sun then the earth’s upper atmosphere would be warming.

              In fact it is seen to be cooling.

              1. Do you understand the purpose of scientific modeling? Do you understand that if the models fail to show correlation with actual phenomenon that the theory they were designed to prove also fails? Do you understand that?

                  1. Balderdash! Models are designed to predict within predetermined margins given a margin for statistically relevant errors. In the case of the IPCC circulation algorithms, these are 20 year base models with predictive temperature rises of around .5 degrees C. The IPPC’s own measurements only show a rise of .06C (HadCRUT4 data from NOAA/IPCC). Failed models, failed theory…welcome to the trash heap of failed experiments.

                1. That is true for the lower atmosphere, but not for the thermosphere.

                  The thermosphere is the layer of the Earth’s atmosphere directly above the mesosphere and directly below the exosphere. Within this layer, ultraviolet radiation causes photoionization/photodissociation of molecules present. Called from the Greekθερμός (pronounced thermos) meaning heat, the thermosphere begins about 85 kilometres (53 mi) above the Earth. At these high altitudes, the residual atmospheric gases sort into strata according to molecular mass (see turbosphere). Thermospherictemperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation. Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 2,000 °C (3,630 °F).

              2. Heat in a planetary system happens when it reacts with a solid much higher than a gas. This is rudimentary 1st year climatology. That was why originally the ground based weather system monitoring devices had to be erected to a very well defined protocol. Funny thing was that about 25 years ago the protocols were changed so that most weather monitors were then housed at airports on concrete and asphalt as opposed to grassy fields. As an experiment, walk barefoot on the grass on a hot day in the summer, and then walk on concrete and asphalt, and then get back to us.

              3. You’re living proof that a sucker is born everyday. I wish I could be there to see the look on your face when you realize you’ve been had. And that day will come.

            2. In the “science” of predator-prey interactions, there are well-documented @20 year cycles, in which prey crashes precede predator crashes, and then it starts again. This can also be seen in rain cycles and El Nino and every other natural phenomenal cycle. Yet, politician and their political whores in science continue to promote apocalyptic predictions. “The sky is falling” approach to brainwashing. It IS working. It has been FOUR generations (10 years per) since the advent of the digital and computer age, and I can attest that my own children (3 decades since births) are sold on the mantra of the doom-sayers. Yet? That generations’ brilliant lights continue to twitter and tweet like stupid birds.

          2. Denialists have been repeating the same lies for the last 30 years.

            They are true believers because of Gobbel’s tactic.

            Reality however, is quite different.

              1. Right on time Michael Fitzgerald shows up to confuse sea ice volume (my comment above) with sea ice extent (his comment)

                Apparently he doesn’t understand the difference between volume and area.

                Nevertheless what we see from his graph is a net loss of 2 million square kilometers of sea ice.

                This value is only temporary as it is raised by a temporary increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.

                Antarctic sea ice extent is already beginning to decline.

                1. You’re refuted. Sorry, Wile E. Coyote (Super Genius); the Acme Data Transmogrifier has blown up in your face and all the blog readers are laughing at you. Oh, and your mother is calling down the basement stairs — she wants you to come up from your trolling and eat your SpaghettiOs. They are getting cold.

            1. Vendicar, all that arctic sea ice graph shows me is that it would take just 10 small seasonal pumping stations working just one winter in the arctic to pump up enough seawater in the frigid air to put Arctic sea ice volume at it’s ‘normal’ level.
              By small, I mean smaller than a pickup truck. Yet, you Marxists have it in your brain that instead of simple fixes that would require relatively little expenditure, you want to destroy all the capitalist countries you can.
              I cannot trust you are all the other global warming folks because it is so cheap and easy to solve, yet you insist on total global conquest to solve it.

        2. **READ TO THE END**

          The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are becoming scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway.

          Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

          Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

          Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

          Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

          Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

          Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

          * * * * * * * * *
          I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 93 years ago!!!

          1. The base for all AGW (climate change, climate disruption…whatever) hysteria is the IPCC and their climate models. These models ARE the heart and soul of the entire theory. These models have failed. Failed theory, end of story. In the IPCC’s own words:

            “According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,”. .. “This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”
            – United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Hans von Storch

            1. The trend has actually been 0.3’C over the last 20 years, or about .15’C per decade.

              An average of 90 CMP 5 model runs project a rise of about 0.44’C rise over the same period.

              Some are speculating that the models are running a bit hot. But we won’t know that for another decade or so.

              1. You can choose to look at this in one of two ways:

                1. You believe UAH data (raw satellite data) which gives an unbiased image of what’s going on across the entire planet and shows net ZERO temperature increase over the past 20 years.


                2. You can choose to believe NOAA/IPCC HadCRUT4 data (data from questionably placed ground bases which is extrapolated, adjusted, and manipulated) which shows a slight global temperature increase.

                Endorsing option 1 is believing what your eyes are telling you.

                Endorsing option 2 is believing what the IPCC/NOAA tells you that you ought to see even though your eyes are telling you something different.

                Your choice; I choose option 1.

                1. My definition of religious zealot is one who “sees it when he believes it”. Al Gore and all the little sheep and lemmings he leads are religious zealots. And they are the same type of people who called Galileo a heretic!

                    1. This graph is supposed to show an increase, right? And it’s an increase WITHIN a degree. One degree. Within 20 years, well within any margin of error. So basically there has been NO real measurable increase in 20 years. So who is the Zealot crazy person here?

                    2. They’re fond of claiming “deniers” ignore “science”….

                      Yet, they are every bit as fond, if not more so, of denying math.

                    3. Look, I watched that documentary, the Day before Yesterday, and it clearly shows that the Statue of Liberty got swept away by a tidal wave, that the ocean water rose at least, I’m saying at least 20 feet. And what about the ships cruising down the main drag, carrying wild wolves, they have it all on film. Not to mention that new series ” Madam Secretary”, hillary’s life and accomplishments are so great and outstanding they had to make it a series, not just a 2 or 3 night mini series, but an ongoing, season after season series. So, let me show you a graph my grandaughter made in school, forgive the blue and red crayon colors. She was able to predict that the Sun would be at it’s full apex at noon, or 12:00.

                    4. Dude! It’s not even within ONE degree…. it starts at 8.35 and ends at 8.8. That’s supposed to be .45 degrees extrapolated on a WORLD WIDE scale…. less than one half a degree. IT’S BULL EXCREMENT!!!!

                    5. Isn’t it interesting how 4 independent temperature reconstructions, all using different methods, converge on the same result?

                    6. A poorly extrapolated graph. Climate is not measured in decades, but in centuries and millennia. Like most progressives you take everything out of context in an effort to alleviate your feelings. Transpose the solar output in compliance with earth temperatures and you get a much more closely aligned correlation. But them Al Gore tried to tell us that Global Warming was responsible for sun spot activities.

                    7. Here’s some actual temperature history. The idea that we’re facing catastrophic global warming is beyond absurd.

                    8. Ack! The ice age ended because of power plants powered by fossil fuels. It says so tight in your graph! /leftist climate cultist

                    9. You do realize, don’t you, that Central Greenland is…

                      1. Not globally Representative.

                      2. in the middle of a vast glacier.

                      3. Your graphic has a year 0 which is really 1905

                      Using data from the last 110 years omitted in your graph, we get.

                    10. We’re still nowhere near the hottest temperatures in history. I do wonder if someone as brilliant as you could explain 2 things for stupid people like me. What caused our temperatures to rise and fall so rapidly 12,000 years ago. What happened in 1905 that drove the temperatures so high and so quickly and why hasn’t that trend continued over the last 30 years?

                    11. So given that your graph is a well known fraud, what does that say about you?

                      Have you been taken as a stupid sucker?

                      Or are you purposely lying?

                    12. I see a long slow road to 40 degrees warmer, where I start to have to think about some wardrobe changes. (But I must admit to falling for your static analysis approach. Dynamic analysis says I have to wait even longer.)

                    13. A junk model that’s based on false data.Even NOAA has been caught lying on their model calculations.

                    14. Sorry boy but the above graph consists of measurements, not modeling.

                      It is laughable that you don’t know the difference.

                      At what grade did you drop out of public school?

                    15. Incidents of Koran inspired terrorist acts around the globe?

                      Now instead of a y axis of point 3 to point 85 put the left Y axis at 0 to 100 and reprint that please……

                    16. All I see is man made clouds destroying our once blue sky in NM.
                      Climate change is man made…look up!

                    17. Man Made Clouds?? Are you talking about HARP or something like cloud seeding? Or are you saying that global warming is causing more clouds??

                    18. I’m saying we are being sprayed like bugs daily with their weather warfare. I see it almost daily, the planes that crisscross our sky and follow the track of the sun. My solar home is less efficient by 25%+ due to these man made clouds. The proven fact that aluminum in soil and water is off the scale, patents on the process… Don’t ignore this, your grand kids will thank you.

                    19. The Military did use aluminum for radio communications but now they use satellites as repeaters. The radio signals bounced off the aluminum partials. They use sodium to seed clouds, this is a commercial enterprise and you can hire people to do it. There is a big outfit in North Dakota that travels all over the world seeding clouds. since there is little agriculture in New Mexico they wouldn’t waste their time seeding clouds over your house. I have spoken to people like you that believe in all this stuff and to be honest I think you use it as an excuse for your poor contribution to society, Like I couldn’t do better because XXXX kept me from achieving my potential.

                    20. Ha,Ha…I could buy and sell you. I’m doing just fine and have been active in my community for years…UR clueless.

                    21. I know you can’t buy me or sell me… Are you saying you believe in slavery??? Buying and selling people is only something an elitist would say. Being active doesn’t mean you have contributed now does it?? Keep replying because this is fun for me and you do serve a purpose to me, it entertains me.

                    22. I thought the earth’s crust was 78% aluminum bauxite. So no surprise they’d find aluminum there.

                    23. Last time I checked, ignoring alarmist’s debunked claims of impending global disaster was of no consequence whatsoever.

                    24. No one is impressed with your graph. Try posting something interesting, like something from an etch-a-sketch.

                2. According to the chief scientist at RSS systems, which produces the RSS satellite record, the surface temperature record is more reliable and more trustworthy than the satellite record.

                  Further, satellites don’t measure surface temperatures, but measure the average of a deep swath of air centered at 4 km for the readings they get for the lowest levels of the atmosphere that they can probe.

                  You poor Retard.

                    1. “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”

                      Carl Mears Chief Scientist RSS – Remote Sensing Systems..

                    2. Here is what Mr. Carl Mears has concluded. To pull one sentence from what he posted is a disservice to the argument.
                      His Conclusion:

                      My view is that the subduction of heat into the ocean is very likely a
                      significant part of the explanation for the model/observation
                      discrepancies. What is less clear is whether or not this subduction is
                      due to random fluctuations in the climate, or some sort of response to
                      anthropogenic forcing. An important question is now ‘how long will the
                      enhanced trade winds continue?’. The trade wind anomaly lessened during
                      2013, but we do not know whether this change will persist over the next
                      few years and lead a positive phase of the IPO, or if the IPO will take
                      longer to flip to its other phase.

                      I’ll conclude by reiterating that I do not expect that the hiatus and
                      model/observation discrepancies are due to a single cause. It is far
                      more likely that they are caused by a combination of factors.
                      Publications, blog posts and media stories that try to pin all the
                      blame on one factor should be viewed with some level of suspicion,
                      whether they are written by climate scientists, journalists, or climate
                      change denialists.

                  1. This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read, and coming from an alleged “high energy physicist”, no less. In your “scientific” travels, have you ever heard the term VARIANCE, R-squared? The beauty of satellite data is (1) it’s consistent; (2) it’s more difficult to screw with it, and, thus, it can show REAL trends and differences and rates of change, consistently. Ground station data is inconsistent, unreliable, subject to different metering equipment, calibration protocols, and can be readily manipulated and cooked by global warming fanatics like James Hansen from NASA.

                    1. “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”

                      Carl Mears Chief Scientist RSS – Remote Sensing Systems.

                    2. Ahhh, yes Carl Mears Chief Scientist (and Sales Manager) at RSS – who wants to convince you that THERE remote sensing systems are the ones to buy, not those pesky satellite systems that have the potential to put RSS out of business.

                  2. yep your a progressive, cannot win the argument so go to 4th grade mode and start degrading and calling names. Of course when you see a argument that is not true and is going to come back and haunt you because it is the opposite of what you said, you change the name like from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” this way if the weather comes and warms a bit the stupidity of the American voter plus the stupidity of all environmentalist they depend on can say see told you. And if the weathers changes and cools a bit the stupidity of the American voter plus the stupidity of all environmentalist they depend on can say see told you. And you and many more seem to come to there aid.

                  3. The surface temperature record was subject to heavy Urban Heat Island effects and then there is the mater of cherry picky and altering data. AGW is a government sponsored fraud.

                    You poor dis-informationalist.

                3. I dont know much about climate change on how the numbers are added up but even I know when you put sensors on the ground you can get different readings. How do I know? I install weather stations and irrigation smart controllers in California. Putting these things in just the wrong place can get you different readings.

                4. Why would I believe the UAH data when RSS – another satellite record – shows something different.

                  And why would I not believe Carl Mears, Chief Scientist at RSS when he writes…

                  “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”

              2. NASA in 1990: “Don’t trust the ground stations, trust the satellites.” —

                The website show that only 1.2% of the US ground weather stations meet NOAA required standards for a Stevenson screen. If the US which has some of the best weather stations are so poor, how can you trust the ground stations? That is why NASA said to trust satellites back before politics entered the debate.

                I choose to believe the side that demands scientists follow the scientific method; that is not the people in Paris. I choose to believe verifiable data; that is not what the people in Paris want. Please do yourself a favor: ask questions, verify, research. Those 3 things will make you the bane of the climate change movement.

                1. “Scientific Method” when I was in schools (high and college) was that one postulated a hypothesis, and the purpose of ALL data collection was to DISPROVE it. Science has been turned on its head since the 1960s when everything done in its name was to “prove” the hypothesis. Science is NOT FDA “approval” of a drug as clearly evidenced by the FACT that they issue huge volumes of disclaimers and lists of side-effects that show the drugs to be more harmful, in many cases, than the ailment they are issued to the public to abate! It is time for government to get out of science, and scientists to be cut off from tax grants.

                  1. Denialists have been trying their best to disprove the reality of global warming for the last 30 years.

                    So far all they have done is generate laughter from the people watching them fail, fail and fail some more.

                    1. According to this chart, there is a 3.29 millimeter increase per year. You’re telling us that we can accurately measure a 3.29 mm difference in the level of the ocean, noting that oceans cover 70% of the earth? What’s he uncertainty on the measurements for the data points on this chart? I find it very difficult to believe that we can measure such a small change with any accuracy give all the other factors that could affect this measurement. Things like continental shift, which affects mean surface level, could overwhelm such a small measured change. Other effects will also play havoc on a 3.29 mm per year measurement. That’s about one eighth of an inch a year! I’m guessing that’s well within the margin of error for this kind of global measurement.

                    2. I noticed you did not source this graph. Let me guess, algore or huffpoo. Your lies have been dis-proven on many occasions. You can change the data all you like, it doesn’t make it fact. You are dismissed.

                  2. Yes, absolutely… government pays ‘scientists’ for results. If these people found there was nothing to worry about, that would be the end of the grants.

                2. Satellites don’t measure surface temperatures, but measure the average of a deep swath of air centered at 4 km for the readings they get for the lowest levels of the atmosphere that they can probe.

                  You poor Retard.

              3. Another journey into the pointless weeds of climate change. As much as I appreciate the billions of man hours which went into your remake of the hockey stick, thanks but no thanks.

                Why so blase? Because it doesn’t matter. You lost the public in 2007 and with each passing year you’ll lose a little bit more support. Someday soon even your masters in the political class will realize the crusade isn’t gaining any converts, that your faith’s power to rationalize and justify their floundering social-democratic order is minimal.

                What happens then, Vendicar? Are you ready for the gradual slide into irrelevance?

                Enjoy your NOAA grants while you can.

                1. Nope all spring models are F=kx.

                  k may be a complex function of a number of physical parameters and x is resolvable vector that may be raised to a power, for nonlinear, elastic materials.

                  Same fundamental model, but seeking precision.

                1. The solution that govts propose for climate change is more taxes, which are payable to Al Gore and all the other carbon exchange scammers.
                  Americans are already victims of govt tax scams with an illegal income tax.
                  Govt-Politicians are lying about taxes. U.S. tax law is codified, and easy as 1,2.

                  -Exempt Income-
                  26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)
                  “exempt income means any income that is … exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes.”

                  -Income Not Exempt- aka, The list of Taxable Income
                  26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)
                  “Income that is not considered tax exempt. The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income

                  (A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer … gross income (whether domestic or foreign source)
                  (B) gross income of a DISC or a FSC; [means Domestic International Sales Corp, Foreign Sales]
                  (C) gross income of a possessions corporation
                  (D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911”

                  Do you make Foreign earned income? No? Then according to code (law), you don’t owe any income tax. As usual, politicians are stealing money from citizens under color of law.

                  SOURCE: ecfr DOT gov
                  HOW TO: Click Simple Search, find “exempt income means”

                  Computer scientist data-mines tax code, Whatistaxed DOT com

                    1. Yes try on Maurice Strong and Eugenics. The Climate Change crowd at the UN believe mother earth can only “sustain” a certain amount of people. Very small and the rest of the population present today needs to be culled to create a sustainable future.

                    2. Yes, and that’s why they support Planned Parenthood while worrying about the weather. This is all about tax and spend at the World level.
                      God Bless the USA and Springfield Armory!

                    3. .❝my neighbor’s mother is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h.Learn More right Here….
                      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportOnline/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

                    4. Taxes are nice too. However, the real reason behind the reasons is one world government. They are after global control and the means to make changes everywhere uniformly. They need something big and scary to get all the players to agree to becoming one great big melting (pardon the pun) pot. AGW is tailor made if they can sell it. Taxes are an after thought, but a good one! Their goals are much bigger and much more restrictive for the common folk than you can imagine. Eugenics, and a lot of other abominations are on their short list and all to save the human race. The more evidence reveilles the hoax the louder and more urgent alarmist will get. Their claims of catastrophe and their manufacture of evidence to support their claims will become more dire and much bolder, as the evidence move away from sustaining their hypothesis. Lying 101, when your backs up against the wall, double down and scary the crap out of them. It’s called the bluff… call them.

                    5. And another reason they’re trying to glue terrorism and global warming into the same New World Order agenda. Remember prince Charles and Bernie Sanders comments about climate change causing terrorism?

                    6. And a redistribution of wealth to countries with populations that blame all their hardships on western countries in order to stick their hand out and into our pockets.

                  1. Many of these themes Global Warming, climate change and sustainability are grown or a subset from the UNs Agenda 21 program and ICLEI, the Agenda 21 non-government (NGO) advocacy arm. ICLEI is present in many, many cities and towns all over the country. They promote this radical environmental policy often through the term “sustainability”.

                    The other gem from the UN IPCC was the quote In Nov. 2010, Ottmar Edenhoffer, one of the co-chairs of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said in an interview with German NZZ Online,

                    “One must say clearly that we redistribute defacto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”

                    Yeah Otto, no illusion here, we got it.

                  2. Every tyranny invariably starts with spurious taxes, but it never ends there. They like to watch us fund our own enslavement. It gives them some kind of morbid pleasure I think, and also creates the revenue and the pretext to do what ever they like next.

                1. Yet every scientific organization on the planet endorses the AGW view and the permafrost is melting, oceans are warming, rising and becoming acidic, extreme weather events occurring more frequently and we have had a decade of record temperatures..

                  1. You realize all that you said is a lie. Highest permafrost in decades, only a handful of scientists support AGW as a cause to any significant degree, no oceans rising, falsified temperature data, weather isn’t even related to any of that. Try checking real data for a change.

                  2. False, false, and false. The MEMBERS of those organizations don’t agree with the political statements made by their boards. Richard Lindzen has a piece that explains how this was done with political appointments. The oceans have been rising slightly for centuries. They are alkaline, not acidic. Are you really that dumb? They would need to become neutral before they could begin to become acidic. But more importantly, there is no legitimate trend in ph, only minor fluctuation. Do you really think a trace gas in an atmosphere that is itself a trace volume of the oceans could affect the ph? What about the hundreds of billions of tons of salts washing off the continents and into the oceans?

                    1. To be credible you need sources other than Fox News – google “climate change” (published research ) and you will find 2.44 MILLION studies of which 99% are consistent with AGW. Some hoax 🙂

                    2. The pope does – or is he part of the world wide scientific conspiracy against fossil fuels use ???

                    3. Yeah but once a story gets linked on Drudge there’s almost no point in arguing facts.

                    4. Liberal ‘facts’ aren’t facts at all. These AGW ‘facts’ are not facts either. In order to argue ‘facts’ with a liberal it requires getting lost in the fun house right along with them. Most of us prefer not to.

                    5. I can publish a “research study” on the Internet, idiot. It’s meaningless. I can take any set of statistics you want and make them say anything I want (at least I got some use out of my Jesuit education).

                    6. you might want to check with the jesuits who advised the pope on his climate encyclical 🙂

                    7. You should be a thinking individual and ask yourself some very important questions: Why are they trying to manufacture consensus? Why are they trying to muzzle all opposing view points? These are NOT things people who are interested in real science would ever even consider! This is not science! These AGW oracles have even been caught trying to silence opposition papers in scientific journals. It’s a HOAX!

                      Here, let me help http://wwwDOTtheguardianDOTcom/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails

                    8. As you probable well know, an independent analysis found nothing but some bickering and egotism in the 100s of hacked emails but NOTHING that invalidated the DATA collected by CRU. There are 1000s of studies from independent sources that are consistent with AGW that you can look up online yourself to check accuracy, methodology and fair analysis. THATS how science works!

                    9. Lets try this again: “Why are they trying to manufacture consensus? Why are they trying to muzzle all opposing view points?”
                      Is THAT how science works? lol

                    10. Who is THEY ??? What is it about 100,000s of studies from 1000s of INDEPENDENT sources that you are not getting? The consensus comes from observing the same phenomenon. There is a strong consensus that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. – no hoax there either, the world is in fact roundish.

                    11. Oh for Christ sake. Who is ‘they?’ Do you think perhaps I’m referring to the IPCC?
                      For the THIRD TIME: “Why are they trying to manufacture consensus? Why are they trying to muzzle all opposing view points?” That is not how science works. If you are actually concerned about science those facts should throw up big red flags for you.

                    12. You obviously don’t know nor do you understand science. Let’s try this….

                      Global temperatures have not warmed for going on 18 years even as CO2 increased 12%. Sea level rises have dropped in half globally to just 4 inches per century. Global hurricane activity is at a 30+ year low. Sandy produced devastation but it was barely a CAT 1 storm on landfall. We had 8 major hurricanes hit the east coast from 1938 to 1960.There were 142 fewer tornadoes in 2013 than any year on record and despite two big fires made worse by environmental pushback on thinning and brush removal, the number of wildfires was the lowest since reliable records began in 1984. We are told we are seeing rapid increases in heat records, but the state all time heat records tell another story. 23 of the 50 occurred in the 1930s, 38 before 1960 and there have been more all-time cold records than heat records since the 1940s.

                      The only phenomena that has increased is the one that NOAA, the IPCC and Union of Concerned Scientists (really environmental activists) that now occupy our universities told our ski and maple sugar industry would be the one that would vanish…snow. In 2007, 2012 and again early this year, they advised industry and our legislature that the ski and
                      sugar industry would die here. 2007/08 broke records for the most snow in northern and central New England. Last year we had the super blizzards of February and March and this year is well above normal here and ranking in the top 10 in most cities from the east to Midwest and even for several locations converging on #1. For the hemisphere 4 of the 5 highest snowcover years have occurred in the last 6 years. But instead of admitting to their mistakes (and I
                      have just presented the tip if the iceberg of failings), they claim whatever happens Is consistent with their theories. They have created a non falsifiable hypothesis by claiming both sides of every extreme or possible occurrence, even cooling.

                      Einstein noted a model or a hypothesis cannot “prove” anything. But data can invalidate a hypothesis or model. “The case is never closed. Many experiments may prove me right BUT IT TAKES ONLY ONE TO PROVE ME WRONG.”

                    13. You do realize that the organization that investigated the climategate emails was the same organization who was lying to begin with, correct?
                      If all of this is available to the public, why won’t the NOAA produce the documents explaining why they adjusted (manipulated) the temperatures for the last 15 years?
                      Dear genius, can you tell us what % of the atmosphere is made up of CO2 and what percent of that CO2 is caused by humans? (Play Jeopardy music now….)

                    14. You sound like a climate change sap … or sucker ,,, whichever you prefer. You own a car robNBC? A furnace? An air conditioner? If you answered yes to any of those, please help out Mother Earth and go off yourself.

                    15. Why because I reference actual science and not your Fox News talking points ? You live in an echo chamber.

                    16. What science? You didn’t reference any science! You gullible fool! Answer my questions … do you own a car, a furnace or an air conditioner? If so, quit pushing your Climate Change bull$hit religion and STFU!

                    17. Actually I drive a hybrid, my heat comes from hydro and I don’t use an air conditioner – its not that hard to reduce one’s carbon footprint. There are 2.5 MILLION scientific references to climate change (check google scholar) – I suspect your sources are Fox News talking points. I am guessing you are also a ditto head.

                    18. You hypocrite! Hybrids still use gas and, unless you are off the grid, you have no way to verify your source of electricity is coming from a renewable source! Utilities now operate under regional system operators. They direct which electricity source runs and when. You could be using that dirty COAL!!! to power your little golf cart of a car … rather than wind power or hydro! And on top of all of that, YOU EXHALE CARBON DIOXIDE!!! Your libtard face should be plastered all over the place as a freakin’ HEATHEN! Better look out … the rest of the Church of Climate Change is gonna come after you!

                    19. I think there is no hoax. Climate scientist are people that are after the truth. Based on their theories their computer models predict humans may have an influence on the earths climate.
                      Barry O’brien only points out common sense though. If CO2 is a trace gas (0.03%) how can it effect the PH of oceans? It is an enormous water mass, so basic chemistry says that cannot be done. He is only asking a very decent question. Insulting you however was not necessary. I you want to convince people you should answer these questions instead of avoiding them.

                    20. And I should believe you rather than 99% of the best scientists who have been working in this area for decades because ?
                      Do conservatives really want to identify themselves with “birthers”, xenophobes and fossil fuel funded PR flaks? NASA
                      lands rovers on Mars or do you think that was a hoax too? If you think this is all made up then check the OCO2 data for yourself.
                      Or the ARGO data set, or the NOAA data set, or the Greenland ice core data set, or the Mona Lau observatory data but be careful
                      because reality has a well know liberal bias 🙂

                    21. Wow. There’s a lotta puke in your comment, but not much sense. Rambling. Rather incoherent.

                      There is no 99% (or oft claimed 97%) agreement of man made Klimate koo koo…. only libstain “reality” filled with such delusions. I’ve examined these “papers” quite thoroughly.

                      You haven’t thought about this issue very carefully, have you?

                      The entire story of Klimate kookery is held together by fewer than 25 delusional nutballs who have declared themselves “Oracles” of Earth’s temperature. They adjust and tweak, and blatantly disregard data that doesn’t fit their religion. Then they apparently pray to the Klimate god for magic numbers to fill vast gaps in the data set, and finally, make a proclamation. This is what passes for that “reality” in the libstain world.

                      Most of the “Scientists” you refer to don’t study temperature. They study everything from squirrel mating rituals to the number of berries in bear scat. Some take a pleasure cruise to the Arctic, watch a glacier calve some ice, and oooh and ahhh at the “horror” of ice melting. So, when they say they “believe” Klimate Koo koo is real, it is merely that they believe the claims of a higher overall temperature average….. as reported by the 25 nutballs in the previous paragraph.

                      I DO look directly at data. (and the absence of data) That’s why I know the Klimate scam is a scam.

                    22. Nice try. Attacking the ethos of those who disagree with you is a pretty weak and obvious tactic when you feel you’re losing an argument.

                    23. Are you expecting Trump style plitical correctness?I you look at the range of comments here you will see they are looking for ideological affirmation NOt scientific evidence which they can get from the public record.

                    24. I’ve come to the conclusion that you are just too stupid to talk to. You have zero idea what you are talking about. You will believe anything any incompetent left wing zealot will tell you. Michael Mann is probably your hero. (He belongs in prison by the way.)

                    1. The lefties that push this agenda the most are the ones with the least actually science backgrounds. With them it is a religion, as they don’t really understand what they are screeching about.

                    1. Go to Googlw scholar and search “climate change” – you will get 2,4 MILLION hits – 99% of which support AGW – I know where you get YOUR nonsense – Fox News. If Trump says its a hoax that pretty much guarantees that its true. 🙂

                    2. Do you understand that Google SCHOLAR searches ALL articles published in academic journals – Google doesn’t make them up. It is hard to tell a humorous conservative wind up from a genuinely ignorant ring-wing numbskull. 🙂

                  3. Yes they all sing from the same hymn sheet. Duh, it’s a political, corporative, scientific fascist agenda! It’s a New World Order. When will it sink in?

                  4. And where do these scientific organisations get their funding me wonders? Are you trying to tell me they’re their own authority in these matters? In East Anglia they were caught blatantly cheating and an ‘inquiry’ came along that basically exonerated them in a way that would make Lord Hutton or Lord Chilcock blush.

                    1. Why don’t you actually go and read the research and decide for yourself if the methodology is valid, if the data is consistent, if the analysis is fair. There are over a million studies done by thousands of scientists working for hundreds of different organizations. Unlike politicians and faux news sources, fudging data in a scientific study would destroy someones reputation. Even Exxon corps scientists have concluded that fossil fuel use was a major contributor to global warming for the LAST 20 YEARS – Exxon executives chose to ignore their own scientists.

                  5. Wrong. Only the useless organizations that get the vast amount of their money from what was stolen from us. Again, if these “scientists” would quit cherry picking or outright lying about the numbers, they may have credibility. But instead they are just stuck on stupid, because tis what the marxists want. These “scientists” have no desire to be out in the cold, when they can lie and get millions of ill gotten gains.

                  6. And Mr. Brainwashed has arrived. Are you ignorant about everything or just this global warming hoax? You do know that govt. scientists have spent the last 20 years revising old temperatures downward and recent temperatures upwards, correct? If you don’t do some research, because there is your “global warming”.
                    Maybe you should reference REAL scientists whose paychecks aren’t dependent on regurgitating the same bs over and over again.

                  1. Not if it’s political you don’t. Not if it is at the forefront of how they want to change the world you don’t. Not unless you want to find yourself ostracized very quickly or worse. These are not nice people to deal with.

                2. As a as a great example the last hurricane, Joquan, every computer model save one showed it slamming in to the east coast 10 days out. Of course as it got closer the models had to change. However if they can not predict 10 days out… the hell can they predict 5, 10, 20, 50 years out.

              1. The far-left nut-jobs must be in a panic to be so scared of us “deniers”. This is evidence their climate fraud is in a perpetual slow state of crumbling due to the unpredictability of climate change, which is always happening.

                1. They’re SO desperate, they’re now turning to established religion to push their message. They already have the pope in their back pocket and now they’re seeking other Liberal religious groups to cram their message.

                  1. Yah – the pope is now part of our worldwide conspiracy and we just got Exxon to admit they knew about climate change for 50 years the same way tobacco companies knew about cancer. Now Exxon sponsors alternate energy projects and calls for costing carbon. Trump and Gore have an green energy partnership but Trump has to create some hysteria around terrorists to distract his high school dropout crowd and gun nuts.

                2. They do not even acknowledge the mathematical limitations of nonlinear systems that are sensitive to initial conditions, see E Lorenz, MIT Prof, father of modern chaos theory. That puzzles me greatly and makes me wonder if the modelers will say anything to get funding. I agree with them that it is an interesting problem to work on. But you still have to be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

                  1. In order for models to have a chance at working, all the variables must be accurately modeled. Not only can we not do that accurately as it relates to climate, there are probably a few variables yet to be discovered. We don’t know what we don’t know. The political scientists involved on government funded climate science only get their funding if they commit to present a predetermined outcome dictated by their funders. It is a fraud of historic proportions.

                    1. It is worse than that and it fundamental. The mathematics for any deterministic nonlinear system, sensitive to initial conditions cannot be solved, providing a unique solution. Even if all the variables, as you described, are well known accurately, there still is no unique solution for these equations. That is the fraud that is incomprehensible.

                      Your answer on the politics of it all is the only rational explanation.

            2. In addition, recall from the 1960s and 1970s that the oceans were to be 3 to 6 feet above what they were then, or about 3-6 feet above what they still are. And, in the 1970s, the dire seers of diversity were telling us to expect massive glaciers all over the eastern seaboard of North America by the year 2000… I’m keeping my snow shoes AND my surfboard handy…

              1. And, in the 70s, Popular Science was running with covers like “The Coming Ice Age”.

                Until 1988. One warm, dry, beautiful summer. 80s in March. Most of the summer it was in the 90s and 100s. Wonderful. And unfortunately, out they came.

                “The Earth….has….. a fever”. And they’ve been on the loose ever since. Most impressive were the test cars, collecting data while sitting in the middle of traffic jams……..

              2. What I really liked, was Al Gore insisting that the oceans would rise at least a foot and obliterate miles of coastal areas – then buys a multi-million dollar house on the beach in California, where if the oceans were to rise 6 inches, would put his living room underwater. Even the movements’ star preacher doesn’t believe in the snake-oil he is trying to sell.

            3. Yes, that’s the same info I have, adding one note, those figures are allotted a “5%” margin of error…….I would say at this point “climate scientists,” (and their cushy gub’ment paychecks), fall into the category of “non-essential personnel.”

            4. Exactly. And, they had to massage the data as that was the only way to show a temperature increase over the last 15 years.

              If you don’t like the data or the results the data gives you, then you must massage the data until it supports your Social Engineering Agenda.

            5. From the NWO globalists;
              “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
              – “The First Global Revolution”, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider 1991

            6. Actually we have had record breaking global temperature averages for the last 20 years exactly as predicted by several different models. You need to update your talking points.

              1. My “talking points?” I quoted Hans Von Storch of the IPCC. Was Hans lying when he said we have experienced 17 years of “value zero” temperature increase? In your mind, is the IPCC untrustworthy? I suppose that if you, a global warming alarmist, won’t even accept the IPCC’s word there is no hope that you will ever be convinced that your religion is based on incoherent logic.

                1. “Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”[2] — ( Hans Von Storch ) ———– Nice try 🙂

          2. I found a paper with a longer perspective, 10,000 years that says much the same.

            Kulusuk Lake is located on Kulusuk Island off the east coast of Greenland about the same latitude as northern Iceland. The lake was the subject of a recent paper with a graph of glacier advance and retreat. I used this graph to explore how the warming and cooling might correspond with warming and cooling in Europe and finally what the impact might have been on the Greenland colony.


          3. You do realize this stuff doesn’t work with these fanatics, right? They’ll just read it and say “Wow! This has been going on even longer than we thought! The matter is urgent!”

          4. Good post. I believe Obama’s current “science czar” said back in the 70’s global cooling was going to kill all sea life by the year 2000. And every one of these pigs thinks there’s too many disgusting humans on the planet….could that be the ultimate goal?

          5. We can talk global warming. But, first, we’ll talk about the radical, militant disease called Fabian Socialism and why its adherents want to destroy America through hoaxes like global warming! Until then, America will fight all of the Fabian Socialists’ schemes that seek to redistribute wealth and eat away at the freedoms Americans have fought and died for!

          6. Edward Gibbon, in DAFORE, Vol. 2, noted that in Roman Republic days the climate must have been colder, as ice allowed the barbarians to cross the rivers that guard the north of Italy, which was no longer the case when he wrote that, in about 1780.

          7. I almost skipped this and figured you were just another bat crap crazy libtard. I’m glad I read all of it. Friggin hilarious. Great post my conservative bretheren.

        3. Seabed mud cores and ice cores show an interesting rise in CO2 at the end of warm periods and beginning of cool periods or ice ages. Rotting vegetation after a major die-off could explain that transitional spike.

        4. Hilarious that the people caught lying in Climategate one and two with all the false data e-mails are now advocating silencing those who actually stick to hard data telling the truth.
          When you get paid by politicians and falsify data to keep your job, it makes sense for the lapdogs to go to their keepers for help. This is Orwellian, hypocrisy at it’s very definition. I find liberals who get ripped apart by facts and rational only can turn to silencing their critics as their last hope. Their false claims can so easily be picked apart, they know they have no other option. Works for every despot in history, at least in the short run.

      2. Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky were all devout Marxists who were all banished from Russia or sent to Siberia at one point or another for constantly attempting to over throw the government through violent tactics. Why they were allowed to live is beyond me. Whatever the case, those same Marxist tax are currently beyond used by the radical left to silence any and all opposition.

          1. The problem with scientists today: “Of course we know this…because we said it”.

            There was no measurement at the time, nobody was there, nobody can certify it. There may still be factors not considered when estimating (guessing) the temperature back then. GreenHeretic is simply pointing out that an estimate or theory is not fact. Until we know everything, we do not know everything. Science’s credibility is damaged every time a “scientist” presents an estimate or theory as known fact.

            APGW has been the most damaging theory to Science due to its adherents’ insistence not only that they know everything there is to know on the subject, but their insistence on shutting down scientific discussion of competing theory. Shutting down opposing viewpoints is very poor science.

      1. Please, based on the intelligence you have displayed in your previous posts I doubt you have the intellect to understand basic algebra let alone advanced physics.

          1. That would not seem to require training in advanced physics, but I guess those relegated to teaching remedial courses on weekends probably have some issues.

          2. So, what would the physicist make out of the following overlay of CO2 levels in red, and temperatures in green? Kind of eye popping to notice the temperature changes PRECEDE the CO2 changes on this plot. Temperature goes up…CO2 goes up rather proportionately. That would seem counter to any argument that the CO2 man-made or otherwise is causing a change in the climate. In fact it points to the opposite. Granted this is only one plot, but it definitely shows that there is room and cause for OPEN debate that those who believe in APGW seem to want to shut down and demonize.

      2. Really? Then, in line with your training, you can easily tell us all what the following formula does and rewrite the formula to find r 2

        F = G m 1 m 2 / r 2

        Either explain your rewrite of the equation or admit you’re a liar.

        Actually, you already proved you’re a liar on a thread about “Climate Change”; you insisted the Chinese believed in it, too–until I linked to a published work from China that says the IPCC is lying and that there is no Climate Change. Never heard from you again until now–and surprise! Another lie!

        You need to change your user name to Walter Mitty.

        1. That is newtons universal law of gravitation and should be written

          F = (G * m1 * m2) / r**2 for clarity

          r**2 = (G * m1 * m2 ) / F

          I would give you the vector equation if ASCII had the ability to display vector notation.

          “I linked to a published work from China that says the IPCC is lying and that there is no Climate Change” – RLABruce

          China climate change plan unveiled

          The office of Premier Li Keqiang said that emissions “will peak by around 2030” and China would work hard to achieve the target even earlier.

          The statement echoes China’s declaration last November following a US-China summit.

          China’s pledge comes ahead of talks late this year in Paris to seek a new global deal on climate change.

          The statement, released following a meeting in Paris between Li and French President Francois Hollande, said China aimed to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65% by 2030, from 2005 levels.

          The carbon intensity target builds on a previous plan to cut carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020.

          China also aimed to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its primary energy consumption to about 20% by 2030, the statement added.

          1. 1. It took you all day to find, copy and paste Newton’s law of gravitation? LOL! You aren’t too competent on a computer, are you? Just what DO you do that someone pays you to do?

            2. You confuse China’s political rhetoric with their science; have you read the English translation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences publication, “Climate Change Reconsidered”?
            It calls the IPCC findings a lie and contradicts Premier Li’s political statements. All Li’s talk means is that the Chinese see an advantage for themselves in creating a global carbon tax; probably they have arranged to receive the tax revenue while the US provides the revenue.

            Certainly if you “have training in high energy physics”, you would be interested in their scientific findings rather than their politicians’ speeches. I still call you a liar; it’s hard to think of anything you couldn’t look up online. Can you give details in what you do for a living, or at least name the degrees, honors, scholarship studies and research you have conducted, or even participated in? Most of the so-called “climatologists” have bachelor degrees in unrelated fields with no training or background in what they claim to have expertise in. Show us how learned you are; give us your CV, VD!

    2. Well, it is a religion. It is a belief system. A belief in something that cannot be observed or proved. In fact, observations that go against its premise are proof of its existence. It requires absolute fealty, and demands condemnation and persecution of non-believers. And it always needs money and sacrifice.

    3. Well “climate deniers”, like myself, demand that the U.S. totally secede from the UN and bulldoze the building itself in NYC right straight into the East River!
      Whadaya no good, stinkin’ mullahs that run that joint think of that?

      Computer modelling software has to be written to prove the
      FAKE SCIENCE because computers DO NOT automatically
      produce “Correct” results. Written to show TEMPS rising
      after CO2 increases – Which we used to be taught in high
      school science as BEING A FABRICATION OF THE LAW

  2. When science becomes politicized, it is no longer science. When it is blasphemy to express dissent with scientific opinion, that is religion. It is tyranny. Pretty soon we’ll have a call for an Inquisition for the “deniers,” imprison them, and burn them at the stake. What has our world come to, when political correctness trumps free thought? We know. It’s called tyranny.

    1. Galileo Galilei expressed view opposite of the “consensus” of his time…
      He put his life on the line, but he refused to back down and help the world come out of the dark ages of pseudo-science…
      Sadly we need another Galileo Galilei… any volunteers?

      1. Actually, Galilei DID recant–but it was not sincere, the genie got out of the jar, and other real scientists saw that he was correct no matter what the Church made him say.

    2. I see. So in your view when Galileo was placed under house arrest for his observations of a sun centered solar system, his theory stopped being science and became politics?

      My goodness that is stupid.

      Sometimes I think that Republicans just open their mouths to say the most stupid thing possible in any situation.

        1. Can you provide any examples? I’m used to talking to reasonably intelligent people who can follow a conversation.

          You seem to need remedial assistance.

        1. My goodness you are ignorant. The heliocentric theory was advanced by
          Nicolaus Copernicus in the early 1500’s.

          Galileo didn’t invent the theory, but he was tried for defending it in 1633, 100 years after Copernicus.

          Galileo wasn’t punished by his contemporaries who had accepted the theory but by Christians who denied the scientific reality.

          Today we have Christian Republicans engaged in the same anti-science practices.

      1. Seems to me that BurningTree was unhappy about the Galileo incident and simply pointing out that people of yesteryear politicized that situation much like the GW debate has become politicized by both sides today. The only way you can grab the high moral ground is to call for honest debate and tell the people calling for a new Inquisition to stop being that which they profess to hate. Debate is part of Science.

    3. Put any people that even speak about GW in jail; especially jail politicians promoting taxes to prevent us from heating our homes and farmers from growing our food,

          1. It is a place for mongrels like M00-chelle Obama,Hitlery Clinton and their breed to sell what their families steal from the working people.


          1. Like most of your kind you assume someone is conservative or liberal.

            I prefer to be an Indp. voter and not have my head up a donkey’s or elephant’s backside.

            You will be able to think better and see much better when you remove your head…


            1. Ignore the troll – He’s a Palestinian living in Canada. Worked as a janitor at a High School in Ontario. Was arrested and (possibly) jailed for making threats against President Bush, as his trolling “went dark” for a period of time. He also posts as Scott Nudds, and Scott Douglas.

              1. I just like leading mongrel breeds like this cry baby around by their nose rings and rub their noses in their own crapola.

                People like this mongrel are totally worthless to mankind.


    1. Ms.,

      Agreed; we saw the same soiled idealism turned into power play corrupt dealing, as we now see with votes equating Zionism with racism, ignoring the plight of Nepal, the overall world Jihad. Why go on? Enough there to say: Lets start over with NATO, the south Asian quasi equivalent (ASEAN?) and the many others who’d want to be on good terms with us.

      It would be a new, more honest day. And hey, if we can elect Trump, it could actually happen. If it comes up, he very well might say “I’m open to it,” and actually be open to it. Imagine what he could arrange to do with that property, and how he could turn to another well or unknown realty person who would manage the turnover.

      1. As for myself I’m non-religious. Way to many religions of today all promote hate and none are worth wasting my time on.

        We need someone other than the established politicians. They have had 200+ years to screw things up.

        Shalom – Simply means peace….

  3. The UN needs to be revoked and turned into Condo’s
    They are the largest contributors with all their hot air!
    We are on the cusp of a Mini ice age!! Buy a big truck and increase your carbon footprint NOW!

  4. I can just picture someone having their credentials revoked and unable to earn money to support a family.
    Does it sound logical to target these people and set one or two of them off and lead them into violence?
    I know what I might do, if I couldn’t’;t earn a living and feed my family. I’d find out where some of these activists live and pay them a visit. Ring their doorbell and when the door opens, put a 9mm round right between their eyes.
    Why do something that could lead others to commit crimes and acts of violence?
    Stupid friggin liberals always looking for an unethical way to get what they want. I hope if Trump gets elected, he gives the UN 6 months to leave NYC and revokes our membership.

    1. I just want to know what power the UN has to revoke someone’s credentials. Does the UN accredit anything other than theft of money donated in good faith by the taxpayers of real nations?

      1. Since there are no credentials there is no power for the U.N. to revoke them.

        It’s all just kook filled Denialist nonsense.

        You have been lied to by the Denialist camp.

    2. The “credentials” they speak of is to attend the UN’s meeting. It has nothing to do with professional credentials. It is only to bar the “deniers” from expressing their views, opinions, and facts.

    3. “credentials revoked and unable to earn money” – Kook Whoosh

      I’m a scientist man… Here is my Science membership card.

      Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahah……. Ignorant Kooks.

    1. Scientists don’t operate on consensus, but an ignorant public, and scientific illiterates like you should, since you don’t have the ability to distinguish science from nonsense.

            1. VendicarDecarian0 is a Palestinian living in Canada. Worked as a janitor at a High School in Ontario. Was arrested and (possibly) jailed for making threats against President Bush, as his trolling “went dark” for a period of time. He also posts as Scott Nudds, and Scott Douglas.

    1. They only believe in freedom of speech if you agree with them. Otherwise, they resort to name calling and totalitarian tactics to silence those with whom they disagree.

          1. Those executions are coming, and there is nothing you can to to prevent it.

            And when the deniars are hanging from the trees, I will laugh, and laugh and laugh.

    2. Since ignoring the warming of the globe will result in a holocaust, there is no real distinction to be made between holocaust denial and warming denial.

      “What happened to freedom of speech.” -Texmom

      Can you yell “no fire” in a burning school house?

        1. And yet the flames are self evident.

          You are a criminal holocaust denier.

          The punishment for the crime of treason against nature and man will be execution.

          Lists are already being drawn up.

      1. First of all, the premise that warming of the globe will result in holocaust is absurd. There is no evidence for that. There is evidence that the planet was much warmer in the past and there was no holocaust. Geez. A warmer globe would mean longer growing seasons and more land areas that can be cultivated, less need for heating with fossil fuels, less people freezing and starving, and more forests growing faster and richer. CO2 is not poison to the planet. Trees use it like we use oxygen. It doesnt cause warming. There have been periods with much much more CO2 than we have or are likely to have in a thousand years when the climate was much cooler. The temperature variances occur naturally and cyclically. Relax. The planet has been through all of this before.

        1. Biologists NOT in the AGW camp have stated CO2 levels should be much higher as plant life is currently operating at a deficit. Plants are literally STARVING for additional CO2. Of course Vindthedumbass will never research nor acknowledge this.

    1. Trump supporters are going to be very upset when they realize that Trump is unelectable.

      My guess is that the majority of them won’t realize that until after Hillary is elected.

      1. Well said Mr. Goebbels. The generation that has graduated in the last 10 is the most frightening NAZI youth I have ever seen. I served as a trustee of my University for 3 years and fear for my country like never before. I suppose you are on board with limiting free speech as well as the current group of graduates so Jonny’s feeling don’t get hurt. FYI I am not a Republican as the they are as Fd up as you and your liberal friends.

        1. Liberty University president encourages students to carry guns on campus

          Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. urged students Friday to carry concealed weapons on campus to counter any possible armed attack, saying that “we could end those Muslims before they walk in.”

          Mighty Christian of the Conservative Fascist, don’t you agree?

    1. If you were the only person on earth then you would be free to burn all the carbon based fuels you like.

      But with the current population of over 7 billion, your fuel consumption impacts on the rights of others to clean air and a sustainable environment.

      So your rights will be limited so that they do not conflict with the rights of others.

      Don’t like it? Awwww. Go live on some other planet… Scumbag.

      1. So all your high priests fly to Paris spewing tons of CO2 to dictate to the rest of humanity NOT to spew tons of CO2… and you live on your knees before them only pausing to wipe your chin. We rational humans clearly see you and them for what you all are. You should remember there are over 100,000,000 armed Americans with over 300,000,00 arms waiting for you to start some shite. We’re waiting.

  5. Here are a few differences between a real scientist and a climate “scientist.”
    Real scientists are happy to release their data, because it is important in science to have repeatable results.
    Climate scientists delay, delete and deny data.
    “Why should I make data available to you? -Phil Jones C.R.U.
    “Mike can you delete any emails you have with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…” -Phil Jones C.R.U.

    Real scientists relish debate, they thrive on it. It achieves a higher understanding of the science, the blind-spots in the hypothesis and next steps.
    Climate scientists refuse to debate. It is a weak position to avoid defending your claims.

    Real scientists are respectful of other opinions and other scientists.
    Climate scientists yell DENIER.

    Real scientists use testable hypotheses.
    Climate scientists cling to a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Everything proves it and nothing can disprove it.
    More snow, less snow, more rain, less rain, more heat, less heat more wind, less wind, more cold, less cold it all confirms “change.”

    Real scientists don’t need headcounts and arguments to authority. Their data, their work and their arguments stand on their own.
    Climate scientists claim “consensus” which, in science, is beyond meaningless.

    Real scientists adjust models that don’t work.
    Climate scientists adjust observations to make the models work. “Look, see, no pause anymore….”

  6. There is a video on YouTube you can search for. It’s called The Great Global Warming Swindle. It was originally broadcasted in the U.K. several years ago. I got a chance to see part of it and it’s really good.

    1. Ya, that video is a laugh. The producer was caught red handed altering claims made in the video through creative editing, and was also caught fabricating the temperature graphs uses in the “ahem” documentary.

      Dishonest producer and dishonest video.

        1. ‘Swindle’ was a deliberately provocative polemic and Durkin was entirely at ease with editing interviews – on at least one occasion – so that the participants appeared to be saying exactly the opposite of what they had in fact proposed. He claims that global warming is a hoax foisted upon an unsuspecting public by conspiratorial environmentalists.

          Sir David King, then chief scientific advisor to the UK Government, complained to Channel 4 about how his own contribution had been manipulated. After the show aired there were more than 260 further complaints from viewers.Professor Chris Rapley, then head of the British Antarctic Survey, dismissed the programme as “a tissue of lies”.

          Bob Ward from the Royal Society, who had previously taken on ExxonMobil, drafted a 180 page report for the broadcast regulator, accusing the programme of “displaying erroneous or artificially manipulated graphs, and presenting incorrect, misleading, or incomplete opinions and facts on the science of global warming and the related economics.”

          Ward told DeSmog UK: “I thought it was outrageous. I thought: how is it possible that this has been allowed to be broadcast, because it’s so blatantly full of demonstrably false information? What I decided to do was to organise a joint letter by a group of climate scientists to complain about it.”

      1. I’ll have to look it up. Couldn’t be near as fabricated as Al Gore’s documentary. Anyways, could you give me the name (or names) of those who made this claim so I can check the credibility of the accusers?

  7. The real, unstoppable, climate change (beginning 500 million years from now):

    When the Sun becomes a red giant, it will happen very quickly, sweeping through the inner Solar System in just 5 million years. It will then enter a relatively brief (130 million year) helium-burning phase. It will expand past the orbit of Mercury, and then Venus. By the time it approaches the Earth, it will be losing 10^20 tonnes of mass every year (8% the mass of the Earth).

    But the habitable zone will be gone much sooner. Astronomers estimate it will expand past the Earth’s orbit in just a billion years from now. The heating Sun will evaporate the Earth’s oceans away, and then solar radiation will blast away the hydrogen from the water. The Earth will never have oceans again. It will eventually become molten again.

    Will the Earth survive? According to Schroder and Smith, the answer is no. Even though the Earth could expand to an orbit 50% larger than today’s orbit, it won’t get the chance. The expanding Sun will engulf the Earth just before it reaches the tip of the red giant phase. And the Sun would still have another 0.25 AU and 500,000 years to grow.

    Once inside the Sun’s atmosphere, the Earth will collide with particles of gas. Its orbit will decay, and it will spiral inward.

  8. The global warming hoax Nazis are tripping all over themselves trying to keep the scam alive. The globalist weirdos attempting to assert their is some correlation between “global warming” & terrorism/invasion of western civilization is absurd to say the least.

          1. NOAA & numerous universities have already been busted cooking data to support the global warming hoax. They no longer have credibility on the matter, & neither do you.

              1. I see, the jive turkey who has no proof of anything he spews is demanding proof from others. Sorry clown, you’re going to have to do your own research. There’s this fantastic invention called GOOGLE……

  9. The only way climate alarmists can get the “consensus” they claim is to eliminate all scientists who don’t agree. Real science doesn’t operate this way, only religious cults do.

          1. Got that right. Total troll. He’s a Palestinian, living in Canada. Worked as a janitor in a High School in Ontario. Was arrested for making online threats against the President.

      1. So China can emit twice as much pollution as the US as long as they have more than twice as many people? Is this why Democrats are trying to get as many illegals into the country as possible, so that we too can have a zillion people and thus lower our per-person carbon footprint?

  10. More leftist environmental facism. No free speech if you disagree with them. Next Prez should get us the hell out of the UN and send the UN itself packing off to some Thild World hellhole, since that’s who they support all the time. Maybe Tripoli would be a good place for them.

    1. The AGW cult thinks it is justified in persecuting deniers with the complicit agreement of our president. And we have a justice department that thinks it is justified in imposing Sharia law; prosecuting those who speak against Mohamed and thus angering Muslims.

    2. That is a funny thing to say given that a large number of denialists argue that the earth can take care of itself, which is exactly what the Gaia principle states.

      You did know that… Didn’t you?

  11. This just removes any doubt that the global warming cabal is nothing but a cult that will deny all facts and instead, embrace faith in their falsified beliefs.

          1. Personally I’d prefer you get a clue and stop your lies. If you actually believe what you are saying you are really really easily manipulated and stupid and it must be scary for you to be living in such deluded confusion. Sad in a way. Otherwise you’re just a lying douchebag liberal.

  12. People that promote policies to lessen climate change should be jailed regardless of accuracy of climate change predictions. Accurate predictions or not, politicians should not enact policies to lessen the effect of climate change because the results of all such policies are pure speculation. In general, policies will be used to increase control and enslave through ever more taxes and laws. We would be better off taking our chances with climate change that being enslaved.

        1. He likely was – VendicarDecarian0 is a Palestinian living in Canada. Worked as a janitor at a High School in Ontario. Was arrested and (possibly) jailed for making threats against President Bush, as his trolling “went dark” for a period of time. He also posts as Scott Nudds, and Scott Douglas.

  13. This is why there is so much agreement among researchers. Liberalism dictates that one does not counter someone who disagrees with you with better argumentation, you destroy that person so their position is no longer heard. A liberal gets into a position of power and they proceed to purge the system of alternative thought.

    1. Just cognitively disabled progressive liberals doing what cognitively disabled progressive liberals do. When has a cognitively disabled progressive liberal in the course of human history ever one time failed to start stringing up barbed wire and building guard towers?

  14. these so called activists need to have the “deniers” credentials revoked because they are unable to refute the “deniers” arguments. So it is far easier to have your opponents banned, than to debate them and end up looking like a fool.

      1. How so? Is it the manufactured data,or the increase in arctic ice, or the fact they got busted collecting temperature data near power p l ants, glass buildings etc. Or maybe it was the false emails they got busted on. Or n maybe the fact the earth temp hasn’t risen in nearly 18 years. Or maybe it’s the fact that every single global warming prediction in the last 40 years has never came true ……..

        1. So what you are telling me is that you are sooooo stupid, that you have fallen for every lie the denialist camp has thrown your way.


          1. So you can’t stand that someone has a different opinion than you , so you go to the personal insults….typical…shows a lack off intellect though…..I suppose I could also say that you have fallen for every lie, and there are 40 years of proven lies, the global warming nuts have tossed your way….ssssssssuuuuuuuccccccckkkkkkeeeeerrrrrr

  15. The only true resource for the “climate fear mongers” are computer models. And the, scientists, use questionable information going in and the program, produces the desired outcome. As far as I know, the computer models don’t even use information as to what the Sun is doing.

    1. As if something as complex as the weather could be predicted by computer models. Computer programs are coded by PEOPLE, so not only are the predictions dependent on the data, it is also dependent on assumptions coded into the program, which are inherently incomplete and can not take into account all factors due to the completely random nature of weather and solar trends.

  16. We RCCs can only pray that St. Francis of Assisi, from whom the Pope took his name, will give the Pontiff better counsel than he has received from his human advisers.

  17. Morano: “In our film Climate Hustle, we go back to the 1970s. We have Walter Cronkite, ABC News, and Leonard Nimoy — warning of a coming ice age.”
    a good one..o boy! what a criminal UN enterprise these climate change people are

  18. Sound familiar? If you do not believe, we will KILL YOU! The UN is just like Nazi’s and Muslims. if you do not follow their beliefs they will kill.exterminate you.

    1. I sense that you will be getting a shave from the neo-national razor.

      Coming to your American cities, very soon now.

      Have your lists ready, and your obituaries written.

  19. This exchange with Professor Freeman Dyson summarizes the current situation. A millennial cycle has just peaked ( about 2003) and the general trend will be down until about 2650.
    “E-mail 4/7/15
    Dr Norman Page

    Professor Dyson
    Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .

    The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at

    The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003.

    There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.

    The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.

    I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.

    Best Regards
    Norman Page

    E-Mail 4/9/15
    Dear Norman Page,
    Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
    I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
    not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
    I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
    with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
    but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
    glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
    all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.

    Email 4/9/15

    Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
    > Best Regards Norman Page

    E-Mail 4/9/15
    Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like. Thank you
    for asking. Yours, Freeman Dyson.

  20. So much for the free exchange of ideas in pursuit of scientific truth. Action like this clearly shows the climate change advocates realize their agenda is being exposed as a hoax and can not win using scientific arguments. Time to go radical and silence the opposition.

  21. Have you noticed how the left attempts to degrade the opposition through mockery? “Deniers”, “Birthers, “Islamaphobes”, etc. In that way they place the opposition on the defensive so they don’t have to debate the actual issue.

    1. You can’t debate it even if you want to at the UN because if you disagree they revoke your credentials to attend the debate! This is what Global Totalitarianism looks like. If you agree you are safe, but if you disagree with their insane agenda then you are branded an enemy of the state.

      1. And that goes for more than just climate control. If you espouse a conservative viewpoint at any University in America, and I imagine in Europe as well, you will be shouted down by the radical leftists that populate college campus. Students and professors alike.

      2. I’m a scientist man. Here is my “I’m a scientist card.” as proof.

        Sorry sucker. You have been lied to, by your denialist handlers and you fell for it like the loser you are.


  22. instead of using billions to organize a CC money pit organization… why not use the money and upgrade all the power plants directly and clean the air? a gift from the governments around the world, given directly to the power plants toclean the air and keep all our lights on..

    1. For the cost of Bush’s war crimes in Iraq, the entire U.S. electricity grid could have been converted to PV solar at retail prices for the panels.

      That is the extent of the Republican treason against America.

  23. Like the Nazis … how dare people defy them in the quest for their “Climate Reich”! These zealots have no place in society, whether they are psychotically pro “climate”, “atheism”, “gender confusion”, etc. These lunatics have started believing their own faux PC outrage and they must be shut down, immediately. Imagine what will happen if this comes to pass – whose credentials will they revoke next? Doctors who refuse to perform late term abortions? Doctors who refuse to perform gender reassignment surgery? Scientists who oppose genetic experimentation and cloning? Where does it stop?

  24. It’s long since due that the UN get the hell out of the United States. Let them move to Belgium or somewhere else in Europe. We pay 23% of the cost to run it. It’s time to stop that money flow, too.

  25. Well that isn’t very open minded or democratic. In fact it sounds more like evil dictator like Hitler would say. If they don’t believe in my facts ban them from participating and if that doesn’t work maybe we can get rid of them another way. There are some even suggesting that anyone who doesn’t go along the line that the man made global warming so called experts (mostly politicians) are pushing should be imprisoned in solitary confinement or even silenced by other means. Yes they are just like Hitler or worse.

    1. No one has threatened anyone with “such actions”.

      You have been played for the stupid sucker you are, and you fell for it.

      You fall for it every time.


  26. I have high hopes for the film
    I hope that you guys don’t pull the same stuff they pull and use funky graphs and half truths.
    Simply laying out the actual known science from the theory is enough to calm the alarmism

    1. The last film produced by the denialists didn’t work out that well “global warming swindle”, it turned out to be filled with lies, testimony creatively edited to deceive and charts that were fabricated.

      They were sued several times by the people they interviewed for misattribution that threatened reputations.

      I have never met a conservative who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual lair.

  27. These “green” people are pathetic. They should be called “black” instead, for they evoke nothing so much as the vicious intolerance of their Fascisti forebears. Certainly, they have no place in a forum where reasoned ideas are exchanged.

      1. Good suggestion, thanks. The 17th-century English poet Andrew Marvell has a good line: “Annihilating all that’s made. To a green thought in a green shade.”

  28. Extrapolating models so far past the end of your data is always risky. Here’s just a few problems with GW.

    1. No warming for 16 years (–deniers-now.html),

    2. ‘Scientists’ fixing their data (email gate), where they ask each other “How are we going to fix our data?” Worse than fixing a horse race.

    3. GW ‘scientists’ adjusting the data record of temperatures in the past downward to try and ‘prove’ GW.

    If you have to fake your data, then you are not a scientist and in your heart you know it’s a scam.

    1. That’s why they changed the name of their cult from Global Warming to Climate Change. That way they can claim they were right no matter what the climate does, so long as the climate just changes. Of course the climate is ALWAYS changing, so it’s an easy win.

      1. Oh look. Another denialist loser who can’t figure out that the CC in IPCC stands for Climate Change.

        There is dumb. And then there is Denialist dumb.

  29. Calling people ‘deniers’ is ANTI-SCIENCE. Its purpose is to INTIMIDATE scientists and others into SHUTTING UP via ridicule, threat of ostracization, loss of job and, in some cases, criminal punishment. The latter may actually be occurring in New York.

    Small wonder that reports say ‘97%’ of scientists agree on climate change. Many scientists may be afraid to say in public what they say, or think, in private. It’s like Copernicus, who didn’t dare publish his heliocentric theory of the solar system/universe before his death. Galileo tried it and faced an inquisition. Darwin wanted to delay publishing his theory of evolution and natural selection until after his death because he feared criticism from theologians who might call him a ‘denier’ as many still do today. Fortunately, Alfred Russell Wallace’s similar theory hastened Darwin’s publication.

    Scientific theories, unlike mathematical theorems, are never actually proven. They become generally accepted but are always subject to question. Before the Renaissance, medieval scholars were actually a lot smarter than most people believe. They knew the earth was round long before Columbus. But, they also ‘knew’ that the universe was geocentric. They never bothered to check what they ‘knew’ to be true. It wasn’t allowed. But by the 20th century, things had changed. The Davson-Danielli model for cell membranes was accepted for 50 years before scientific evidence discredited it in favor of the fluid mosaic model.

    The term ‘denier’ (of climate change or other things) is an accusatory and derogatory term and its mere use in the context of science is dangerous to modern scientific thinking, especially as the term is appearing in mainstream publications and being uttered by those with political power. In fact, use of the term ‘climate science denial’ is downright anti-science and represents a return to medieval scholasticism, i.e., DOGMA. Users of the term, ‘denier’, should go back should go back to the Middle Ages where anti-science people belong. There, they can have fun burning ‘deniers’ like Giordano Bruno at the stake.

    1. I think the terminology used was something like “97% of scientists agree that human actions impact the environment.” Which of course is like saying they agree that if you jump you move the earth.

  30. “Activists” pressure UN to punish deniers? No sharing of ideas, no examining of facts…that is Fascism. That is tyranny. That shows what a fraud global warming really is. If something can’t stand the slightest scrutiny, it’s a lie.

  31. Didnt the Catholic Church try Galileo in the Inquisition because he told them the universe does not revolve around the earth, that the earth and planets revolve around the sun. Heresy they screamed- a DENIER. It is the same scenario here. The left wants to promote the green businesses of their donor base; the donor base pays off the politicians; the UN and global left wants to redistribute the wealth with a world carbon tax. The billionaires are betting on the green revolution in the stock market. To hell with the fact these green energy companies go bankrupt soon after they get the taxpayer handouts and walk away with millions. To hell with the scientists that are NOT on the government payroll or receiving grant money that disagree. To hell with the windmills killing huge populations of birds, including our bald eagle. Which by the way is a protected species so where is the EPA swat teams???? To hell with the fact that cheap electricity was the engine for 20th century growth. To hell with the people and what they want. It is the government’s way or the highway. JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY.

  32. If anything should convince people that there is real scam going on here, its asking for the opposition to be silenced. They are finally tipping their hand.

  33. The UN is a joke. They blame Israel for everything. That seems to be all they do. And the idiots they put on the human rights committee like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela. It has turned into a global communist machine with desires of wold domination. A new world order of course run by the bureaucrats at the UN. Zeig Heil

    1. The U.S. is a joke. They protect and absolve Israel of every crime they commit.

      Those days are coming to an end as the U.S. vanishes as a nation.

      The world is a better place for it.

      1. Israel commits the crime of self defense? and the palestinians commit the crimes of murder and in your pea brain that is the same thing. You are a total moron and an islamist sympathizer. The same thing that just happened in San Bernardino happens in Israel all the time. Americans will grow weary of the death cult of islam and then the tables will be turned. You obviously hate America so why dont you leave? Go live somewhere else like Somalia, good place for idiots like you.

        1. VendicarDecarian0 is a Palestinian living in Canada. Worked as a janitor at a High School in Ontario. Was arrested and (possibly) jailed for making threats against President Bush, as his trolling “went dark” for a period of time. He also posts as Scott Nudds, and Scott Douglas.

  34. The same people who can’t predict tomorrow’s weather with any accuracy are now privy to the Earth’s billions of years old climate cycle & shall now wage war against the Sun. All that is required is trillions of dollars in taxation & the subjugation of the world’s populace. Fascinating!

    1. I don’t think that the weather billions of years ago effects the weather we had today all that much.

      If you do, then your mental illness is even more pronounced that I originally concluded.

  35. There is another theory to explain climate change. The current theory says the climate is warming because CO2 is increasing and that the CO2 is increasing due to human activity. If you accept the theory that fluctuating CO2 causes climate change then what caused CO2 to fluctuate in the geologic past before there was human activity? One tenet of science is that theories must be repeatable. Another theory for climate change is this… The sun puts out varying amounts of solar radiation based on several cycles (Milankovitch cycles). 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water (the oceans). The Ideal Gas laws (Chemistry 101) states that warm water holds less gas in solution than cold water. THEREFORE…. When there is more solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface the oceans are warmer and hold less gas (CO2) in solution and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. When less solar radiation reaches the Earth’s surface the oceans cool and hold more gas in solution, decreasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The beauty of this theory is that it can explain climate change today as well as climate change in the geologic past. The theory that human activity is causing climate change can ONLY be used to explain climate change today and does not explain climate change in the geologic past. Scientific theories cannot be selective but must be able to be applied across time.

    1. I agree with the Milankovitch Cycle theory. I would add to that, as the earth’s tilt goes from minimum (21 degrees) to maximum (25 degrees) the northern hemisphere receives more sun rays due to the angle of tilt. This is also supported by astronomy and geology sciences.

      You are correct that Milankovitch also explains past warming and ice ages.

    2. “The sun puts out varying amounts of solar radiation based on several cycles (Milankovitch cycles)” – GolfBall

      Sorry Kook but Milankovitch cycles are not cycles in the solar output, but slow, tens of thousands of year cycles in the insolation of the earth, resulting from changes in the earths orbital and rotational orientation.

      If you can’t even get that right, you have no use.


  37. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep…but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis

  38. If Al Gore is the patron, high-jacking saint of AGW, then let him fill a lecture hall with scientists who aren’t on the ‘take’ and address them in the pedantic, industry-specific vernacular that they like.

    If he gets past E=M-see-squared, then he will certainly win hearts and minds…(just not very big ones)