Watch: Morano on TV on new dire studies leading up to UN Summit: ‘Its political lobbying disguised as science’
Morano excerpts: “United Nations climate scientists have admitted that the models used to make these predictions of 50 to 100 years don’t account for half the variability in nature, in other words the scientists can juice or tune the models to pretty much say anything they want to. The current climate reality is failing to alarm, it’s not alarming — according to satellite data we’re at 18 and a half years without any change in global temperature.
In others words, global temperatures have been at a standstill. How do you make that sound scary? You make a bunch of scary predictions about a hundred years from now and you say ‘Hey it’s worse than we thought’ – You respond: ‘What’s worse? Global temperatures haven’t gone up’ and the climate activists answer is ‘The predictions of the future are now much worse than they were a few years ago.”
Morano on new modeling study claiming: Climate Change Will Make the Persian Gulf ‘Uninhabitable’
“This is just lobbying by science and press release all leading up to this big UN climate summit coming in December.
That’s all this study is that’s all it’s meant to do is scare people. It actually says in the study that without action to prevent climate change — What is the action? Carbon taxes, regulations, UN treaties, EPA regulations — its political lobbying disguised as science.”
Related Links:
Warmist frets over media alarmism! No, Climate Change Won’t Make the Persian Gulf ‘Uninhabitable’ – ‘The research predicts that the threshold may be exceeded, perhaps once a decade or so, by about 2100 in places like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and along parts of the Iranian coast. So we are talking about very, very hot temperatures, yes—but not on a sustained basis.’ – ‘It’s incredibly harmful when good research like this gets transformed into apocalyptic headlines. Climate change is bad enough—there’s no reason to exaggerate what we know about it…Journalism that exaggerates climate change does so at the risk of being counterproductive, and we just can’t afford any more setbacks at this point—we’ve already waited long enough for effective climate change action.’
…
Every UN Climate Summit Hailed as ‘Last Chance’ To Stop ‘Global Warming’ Before It’s Too Late
The countdown to the United Nation’s Paris Climate summit is approaching and the public is once again being warned that this meeting will represent the “last chance” for nations to act on “global warming” before it’s allegedly too late.
Media reports are touting “Paris is the last chance”.
Global warming activists have already been issuing multiple “tipping point” deadlines for decades.See: Climate Depot Special Report: Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989! -Inconvenient History of ‘Tipping Points’ — Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium — Earth ‘Serially Doomed’
We are also being told once again that the UN climate summit in Paris later this month, will be humanities “last chance” to “solve” global warming — or else.
See: Last chance! – – The United Nations Climate Change Conference is having its 21st meeting in Paris towards the end of 2015. (Hence COP21 or conference of parties). We’ve been told this is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to keep global warming to ‘a limit safe for humanity’.
Here is a sampling of previous “last chance” deadlines that turned out to be — well — not the “last chance” after all. (Courtesy the great research by http://climatechangepredictions.org/)
Previous ‘Last Chance’ UN climate summit deadlines:
Last chance! – Bonn, 2001 – A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance. That teetering edifice that is the Kyoto Protocol gets some emergency repair work this week as delegates from 180 countries gather in Bonn to work out problems that threaten to scuttle the deal altogether. – Time Magazine, 16 Jul 2001
Last chance! – Montreal, 2005 – In an open letter to delegates at the Montreal environmental summit, beginning today, campaigner Mark Lynas explains why action on climate change can no longer be stalled. “I’m scared. For 15 years I’ve watched international progress on climate change get slower and slower, even while the pace of global warming seems to get ever more rapid. With time running out for the global climate, your meeting in Montreal represents a last chance for action.” – The Independent, 28 Nov 2005
Last chance! – Bali, 2007 – World leaders will converge on Bali today for the start of negotiations which experts say could be the last chance to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change. Bali could be the
Prof admits: Exxon persecution is just a ‘creative tactic’
…Union: Obama threw workers ‘under the bus’ on KEYSTONE
The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) is one of the few labor unions that broke with the majority of Democrats and supported the project, which Obama rejected Friday after a seven-year review.
“We are dismayed and disgusted that the President has once again thrown the members of LIUNA, and other hard-working, blue-collar workers under the bus of his vaunted ‘legacy,’ while doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change,” Terry O’Sullivan, the union’s general president, said in a statement. “His actions are shameful.”
The group’s statement cited a State Department report that Keystone could reduce greenhouse gas emissions when compared with oil transportation by rail.
“But facts apparently mean as little to the president as the construction jobs he repeatedly derided as insignificant because they are ‘temporary,’ ” O’Sullivan said. “Ironically, the very temporary nature of the president’s own job seems to be fueling a legacy of doing permanent harm to middle- and working class families.”…
CHUCK TODD: Environmental Left ‘Dragged’ Obama to Reject Keystone
…Obama to Reject Keystone XL Pipeline, Citing Climate Concerns
Obama to Reject Keystone XL Pipeline, Citing Climate Concerns
http://junkscience.com/2015/11/obama-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-citing-climate-concerns/
Even the New York Times (using Obama admin data) pointed out this was a bogus rationale. Read the WSJ article. Here‘s the NYTimes using Obama admin data to debunk Obama’s rationale.
— gReader Pro…
Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘The incredibly indefensible prosecution of Exxon’
Even if Exxon could have a “corporate opinion” about the scientific question, this opinion is completely irrelevant. It is a scientific question so the relevant opinions are those that are backed by the scientific evidence, usually articulated in scientific papers.
Papers isn’t what Exxon is producing (at most, papers about the technology of drilling etc. may matter in the company but not those on different topics) so its opinions about a scientific question, especially an incredibly controversial one, is simply irrelevant and cannot serve as the basis of anything.
…
Now, Exxon has over 80,000 employees. So one of them was a “climate alarmist” back in 1977 – almost everyone else ignored him or thought that Mr Black was just bullšiting – and even now, 38 years later, this fact is supposed to be a problem for the whole company whose capitalization is $0.35 trillion.The incredibly indefensible prosecution of Exxon
America is the land of the unlimited possibilities. Sadly, it’s often the case when it comes to unbelievably outrageous events, too.The New York State’s prosecutor Eric Schneiderman has actually started the investigation of Exxon. The company is accused of “having lied about the effects of carbon dioxide on climate change for 40 years”.What is going on here?I will discuss the actual events that are supposed to form the “foundation” of these lawsuits momentarily. But there’s one obvious point: “the effects of carbon dioxide and/or/on climate change” are a scientific question and it may only be answered by scientific research.Exxon wasn’t and isn’t an institution whose goal is to do scientific research at all. It is an energy company meant to make profit by providing its clients with products and services related to the energy and the fossil fuels.So even if Exxon could have a “corporate opinion” about the scientific question, this opinion is completely irrelevant. It is a scientific question so the relevant opinions are those that are backed by the scientific evidence, usually articulated in scientific papers. Papers isn’t what Exxon is producing (at most, papers about the technology of drilling etc. may matter in the company but not those on different topics) so its opinions about a scientific question, especially an incredibly controversial one, is simply irrelevant and cannot serve as the basis of anything.So one immediate problem is that Exxon is simply not a scientific institution so it cannot be claimed to “know” the right …