WASHINGTON, Nov. 24, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — CFACT, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy organization that is a leading international voice for sound science and climate skepticism, is sending a delegation of science and policy experts to the UN summit on climate change in Paris, COP 21. The summit runs November 30 to December 11.
“Since the collapse of COP 15 in Copenhagen, the UN has been trying desperately to lock the world’s nations into a new global warming treaty,” says CFACT President David Rothbard. “With the scientific evidence mounting against them, they know this may be their last chance to do so, and bring the U.S. on board while Barack Obama is still President.”
President Obama knows a UN treaty will not be ratified by the Senate and is pushing for a non-binding “agreement” that places him at odds with other world leaders. This is one of many crucial sticking points that indicate anything can happen at the summit. CFACT is headed to Paris to present scientific and economic facts that detail what a crushing mistake a UN climate pact would be.
CFACT’s delegation will include retired atmospheric scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, geologist and environmental scientist Dr. Robert Carter, and former Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore.
Marc Morano, publisher of CFACT’s ClimateDepot.com, one of the most visited and influential climate news and information services on the Internet, will also be part of CFACT’s Paris lineup. He served as communications director for the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and has worked in television, radio and print journalism.
CFACT is also announcing the world premiere of its groundbreaking new documentary in Paris, “Climate Hustle,” hosted by Morano.
“Climate Hustle” assembles an impressive group of experts in climate science and policy, many of whom worked on the UN’s climate assessments, but left after the UN ignored overwhelming evidence that contradicts its position. The film is planned for U.S. release in 2016.
“Climate Hustle” will premiere at an invitation-only event at the Cinéma du Panthéon, beside the Sorbonne, on Monday, December 7, at7:30 PM. There will be a red-carpet ceremony and champagne reception prior to the screening. Credentialed media that RSVP may be able to attend, but seating is very limited.
CFACT, founded in 1985, is a UN-recognized NGO that has been presenting the hard facts that contradict errors in climate science and policy at UN conferences for more than two decades. This year CFACT is teaming up with the Heartland Institute and the Cooler Heads Coalition to analyze the UN discussions, inject facts, and make available leading scientific and policy experts who offer much-needed balance to the climate debate. They will conduct a series of scientific briefings, press conferences and displays.
CFACT experts are available for comments, interviews and analysis throughout COP 21. Contact to schedule an interview.
Watch for CFACT’s COP21 updates at CFACT.org, ClimateDepot.com & ClimateHustle.com
SOURCE CFACT
25 Responses
It’s about time someone started to seriously fight back against all this looney whacko left-wing anti-capitalist phony science. What is it called this week? I heard they are now calling it “climate disruption” instead of “climate change” or before that “global warming” and before that “global cooling”. That darn climate just won’t cooperate with ther insane ideology. Dont you just hate it when the facts get in the way? Before all this, most reasonable people juyst called it WEATHER.
How will anyone see this production? Don’t think it will be on HBO, do you? The most worthwhile venue is in high schools, but alas, the curriculum is way warmist already.
I had a fun weekend… We rented Al Gores movie and all had a good laugh.
This is all so ridiculous when the facts are so simple:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition.
It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which
has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.8%
of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy
our economy?
There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover that
traps heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses. Molecules must be in contact, as in liquids and solids to form surfaces.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance,the longest in history.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Thus temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only
present to 18 ppm. “Green vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against eating meat.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.
This paper, “Huber and Knutti – Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming ..” shows that most of what you say is wrong.
Really ?! How about, instead of chasing the readers around to links, expressing that rebuttal in your own words? For starters I’ll make it easier for you. Just deal with the following:
There is no empirical evidence (none, nada, zilch) showing co2 causing temperature increase, even over geologic periods when co2 level was several TIMES higher than it is now.
I await enlightenment.
My work is in systems analysis so why would you want my own ‘words’? Quoting experts in the field seems more logical.
The fact that temperatures were lower in the past is irrelevant when you realize that ocean/wind circulation patterns and pretty much everything else changes when all the continents are combined into one like Pangaea or Gondwanaland. Climate is complex.
Here’s a fact that may interest you.
Source: NASA Earth Observatory
“As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.”
Not only the speed of warming is interesting, the fact that an increase of 4-7 degrees took the planet from a mile of ice covering New York to the current situation where you need air conditioning in summer should be a warning to the people who say that global warming is not an issue.
If you can’t explain what’ wrong with the rebuttal in your own words, you likely don’t have the answer and/or don’t even understand the term “evidence”. It turns out, in your case it’s one or the other, or both. OMG, you’ve presented NOTHING even relevent, let alone evidence.
Why do you think it’s “so war” now? There have been 13 ice ages in the past 1.3 million years, average duration 90,000 years, with an interspersed interglacial (warm period, such as we now enjoy), average duration 10,000 years.
As Dr. Craig Idso points out, the 4 interglacial periods before our current one were all 2 degrees higher than now. And during this one the co2 level is 40% higher. You don’t need much help from others to figure out that climate is hardly sensitive to co2 level. It also represents just 4/100 of one percent by volume of the atmosphere, so that would seem to be consistent.
You think almost all the worlds scientists and every scientific organization in the world (except the Russian Academy) are incompetent or involved in a vast conspiracy?
Your glacier nonsense can be refuted in a 1 minute google search. I took this from WGMS. Are they in on the conspiracy too? They have some very nice graphs and charts. Perhaps you can ask a grownup to explain them to you.
The World Glacier Monitoring Service, measured 136 glaciers from Antarctica to Canada and from Bolivia to Japan, and found that almost 90% are shrinking.
Glacier mass loss from 1996 to 2005 is more than double the mass loss rate in the previous decade of 1986 to 1995 and over four times the mass loss rate over 1976 to 1985. Glaciers are shrinking at an accelerating rate.
Righto. And that’s because we’re still enjoying an interglacial period between ice ages. When there are no shrinking glaciers, we’ll be into the next ice age. Until then a lot more glaciers should be shrinking rather than expanding. Just another distraction. You, as every other believer in anthropogenic global warming, REFUSE to acknowledge (for some strange reason) the TRUTH.
There is no empirical evidence that co2 has EVER influenced the global temperature, even over geologic periods when co2 level was several times higher than now.
To carry on a debatable discussion it is critical that both sides recognize what is TRUE. The argument should be about issues that qualify as debatable.
The only correlation between co2 and temperature level, over geologic periods (tracking both upward and downward trends) shows temperature variation happening FIRST, and similar variation in co2 level 800 to 2800 years LATER. While correlation does not imply causation, in this case that correlation is obviously related to the carbon cycle. What that correlation proves is that there cannot be the opposite correlation. So, not only no empirical evidence that co2 has ever influenced the planet’s temperature, there’s also not even a correlation.
The hypothesis linking human activity to global warming REQUIRES that this come about because of co2 increase.
All we know about co2 influence on temperature is that increasing the co2 level in a closed container will result in some warming within. However, the open atmosphere is NOT a closed container. Satellites detect radiation (i.e., heat) escaping to space. Neither does a greenhouse experience any planetary level feedbacks.
The ability of co2 to impact temperature can only be brought on by a few very narrow bandwidths of sun energy. As the level of co2 increases, its capability to influence temperature diminishes.
There has been no additonal warming, according to BOTH weather satellites for the past 18+ years. Alarmists refuse to admit even that. (Neither NOAA nor NASA use the satellite data. )
Sorry, i’m not concerned about votes. In science it is only the science that matters. Most of the folks you claim are credible are feeding at the government trough. Even if not feeding on “climate change” $$ directly, they know not to aggravate their source. (and money is no object for the source) This scam puts tobacco and big pharma, plus big medicine to all look trivial by comparison.
So, more glaciers are receding than growing? We’re still between ice ages, and that’s a reassuring sign. If you want to look at such “signs” (not evidence) what happens when it gets to 50/50? How quickly can that happen?
The Antarctic is building ice (volume and sea ice extent. The Arctic has regained about 30% of what it was just a couple of years ago.
Let’s get back to the basics. You’re obvious implicitly claiming that co2 increase is causing this. But, there’s been no additional increase in temperature over the past 18+ years (both weather satellites, and much more accurate than the terrestrial data. There is no evidence that co2 has EVER had any impact on our global temperature, not even over geologic periods. If you can’t get past that problem. Why should anyone pay attention to what is likely just Mother Nature at work?
Then why do the satellite records show cooling over the last 20 years? Are you aware that GISS, NOAA and NASA have been caught changing records to show an increase and that several of their people may soon by indicted? Congress takes a dim view of being lied to.
I doubt that as I am a physical scientist and all of what I have said is based on it. I am also a much published author and you may want to see my book “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com where the Kindle version is only $2.99 and they will give you a Kindle reader for your computer. You will see me attacked by “greens,” communists and sell-out scientists sucking up Federal grants, but I defend myself pretty well. Check out my blog for more.
NO gas molecule can capture, store, redirect or amplify radiant energy photons moving at the speed of light. The ‘absorption’ in discrete bands is a billionth of a second event, followed by an ’emission’ of a longer wavelength, lower energy photon, in effect filtering out energy transfer. The ‘absorbed’ now Kinetic Energy is transferred to adjoining Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules that remove this energy by convective transfer to lower temperature, lower pressure altitudes per the constant Lapse Rate. This and more explained in “Greenhouse Gas Ptolemaic Model” and the rigged, three sided FAKE debate in “Lukewarm Lemmings and the Lysenko Larceny” both at FauxScienceSlayer site. Morano has hosted my articles, beginning with “Gee Mr Mooney, We All Need A Lobotomy” in summer of 2009, but has resisted any mention of the NO Warmist position, or the overwhelming evidence of geothermal forcing, under Geonuclear at my site and soon to be supplemented with new seismic/ENSO data. I met Marc at ICCC-9 in Vegas, July 2014 and again at Heritage/TPPF Summit in Houston Sept 2014. If he failed to mention the full range of debate then his is just as defective as Gore garbage and will be labeled “Inconvenient Luke Truth”….
I hope the sponsors invite Philippe Verdier to the Paris premier and also some members of Le Collectif des climato-réalistes
http://www.skyfall.fr/?page_id=1613
I think “skyfall” is a play on “Goodness gracious me!” said Henny- penny; “the sky’s a-going to fall; I must go and tell the king.”
Société de Calcul Mathématique SA – The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusadehttp://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
From the paper:
“1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1degree C every hundred years” – the choice of the date range is very disturbing without specifically indicating why this range was chosen over other longer periods for which records exist. Especially since this range has been addressed so often by climatologists in responding to the same statements by deniers.
From the paper:
“do human beings have the technological ability to change the climate? The answer is no:” This is arrogant and presumptuous and quoting Baudelaire to justify the statement is silly.
From the paper:
“No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. ” – absolute nonsense with no data reference.
From the paper:
“If there were such a thing as global warming, then we should celebrate”
I’m going to stop here.
Good, since you sounded dumber and dumber….
Another no-content response. Got any evidence to back up your religious-like belief?
Why should one argue with an idiot whose argument is =”absolute nonsense…”. If you want content, argue with one too. Otherwise.. “U R stupid…. is more than enough.
point well taken.
«This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,» she said.