My work is aimed at your liberal friends; please send them to read it.
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.
More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in preserving our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible.Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.
Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.
1 Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.
2 Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural.
3 There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
4 New research shows that fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, at both long and short time scales.
5 CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change …
David Siegel is a vegan because he believes it’s better for the environment. He is a Democrat who feels strongly that governments have a role in protecting the environment. In the early 1990s, he was right there with Al Gore on the global warming issue.
Today, though, he is a denier.
Earlier this year, Siegel “became interested in climate science” so he “decided to spend the better part of this year trying to learn what I could.”
“It didn’t take long before it was clear that there isn’t likely going to be any catastrophic warming this century,” he writes in what might the king of all skeptic sites, Watts Up With That .
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/101615-776009-an-environmentalist-seeks-truth-and-becomes-a-climate-skeptic.htm#ixzz3olDJLh3X
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook…
Heidi Central’s Funding
By Paul Homewood I wondered where Heidi Cullen’s Climate Central got its funding from earlier. Remember that according to Wiki, Climate Central is a nonprofit news organization that analyzes and reports on climate science. Thanks to Jos, who points us to the relevant page on their website: http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/funding We can recognise many of these as what Owen Paterson has previously referred to as the green blob. For instance, ClimateWorks, The Packard Foundation, Flora Family, Rockefeller and so on. There is evidently heavy funding as well from Federal organisations. So taxpayers are having to pay Climate Central to produce what is often grossly inaccurate and misleading propaganda, which in turn supports the Federal Government’s agenda.
— gReader Pro…
Democrat voting vegan greenie switches sides – True environmentalists are skeptics
It’s another conversion. The real environmentalists will all end up on the skeptical side. Notably, the switch is never the other way. (Richard Muller, remember, was never a skeptic). The climate scare works through bullying and suppression, and once open-minded people find the other side there is no going back. What would it take to change your mind? David Siegel has written six books, four of which were international bestsellers. He’s a Democrat voter, and he wants to preserve the environment. He wants that so badly he actually cares about the data, the graphs, and the arguments. (He cares about the outcome, not just about whether he looks like an environmentalist.) When challenged to find evidence, he looked, and was surprised, then he looked more and was shocked. “As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems.”Which is a similar path to mine eight years ago. I was once a Green who believed in man-made global warming. Having studied both sides, he’s written up a very sharp page, condensing what he discovered, and with a personal narrative, plus […]Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
— gReader Pro…
Petition for Climate Skeptic Philippe Verdier to be reinstated in his job at France Télévisions
Yesterday we informed you about how France’s lead television weatherman was forced to take a “holiday” in response to him publishing a book that is critical towards climate change alarmism. So far, all the TV network has done is unleash the Striesand Effect, heaping negative attention upon their decision, which is being seen as prohibiting free […]
— gReader Pro…
BBC: Prominent French Meteorologist ‘taken off the air’ for dissenting on ‘global warming’ – Declares UN climate agenda ‘wants to make us perpetual victims of fear’
What is, frankly, a far “sexier” media story: the suspension of state TV’s top weatherman for daring to question the ethics of COP21 and the whole climate change establishment.
Philippe Verdier is not a climatologist, but he has covered the weather for more than 20 years in various capacities and has attended the climate conferences at Bali, Copenhagen and Cancun.
His conclusions are spelled out in a theatrical promotional video for his new book Climate Investigation.
“There is something I have never been able to tell you because it was not the time nor the place,” he says against the inevitable backdrop of time-lapse cloud movements.
“We are all hostages of a global scandal, a war-machine that wants to make us perpetual victims of fear.”
Although Mr Verdier does not deny global warming, he says there could be positive effects.
AccuWeather senior meteorologist Alex Sosnowski said icy Atlantic waters could affect the weather for years to come.
A spokesman said: “A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn’t halt global warming.
“Return of ‘grand solar minimum’ could affect European and eastern US winters.”…
Warmist: ‘The overwhelming scientific consensus is that humans hold the control knob for how fast Antarctica will melt’
Gizmodo, covered the news breathlessly, saying, “The Antarctic Ice Sheet Has Started to Collapse and Nothing Can Stop It.” That sort of framing is misleading and harmful.
or another example, take this short piece in the Guardian, which ran on Monday with the headline “Antarctic ice is melting so fast the whole continent may be at risk by 2100.” Taken in the context of steadily worsening climate news, a reasonable person might conclude that all the ice in Antarctica—enough to raise global sea levels 200 feet and paralyze human civilization—may now be vulnerable to melt by the time our grandchildren retire. This is absolutely not true.…