No takers yet on French President Macron’s plea for climate scientists to move to France to Escape Trump
French President Emmanuel Macron urged U.S. climate scientists during his campaign to move to France, but so far it doesn’t appear that anyone has taken him up on his offer.
Mr. Macron posted a video in February taking a swipe at President Trump on global warming and welcoming to France “American researchers, entrepreneurs, engineers working on climate change.”
“The message for you guys: Please come to France. You are welcome. It’s your nation. We like innovation. We want innovative people. We want people working on climate change, energy, renewables and new technologies,” said Mr. Macron in English. “France is your nation.”
Even though Mr. Macron handily defeated Marine Le Pen in the May 7 presidential runoff, so far no U.S. climate researchers have declared their intention to flee to Paris.
“I have not heard of a single one taking up the offer as of yet,” said Climate Depot’s Marc Morano. “Perhaps the climate scientists here in the U.S. are still enjoying their academic perks, steady funding and endless media adoration. There does not seem to be too much of a reason they would want to leave.”
In the widely viewed video, Mr. Macron warned that Mr. Trump “has decided to jeopardize your budget, your initiatives, as he is extremely skeptical about climate change. I have no doubt about climate change and how committed we have to be regarding this issue.”
Exclusive Video: People’s Climate March hostile to skeptics – Attempts to take down signs, deny access
WASHINGTON DC — The People’s Climate March in Washington DC today turned into a hostile environment for climate skeptics. Attempts to deny media credentials, block vehicle access and multiple attacks on banners by the marchers, were frequent throughout the day. (Also see: Skeptics Attend People’s Climate March With New Report & Billboards – Denied Media Credentials) & see new skeptical “Talking Points” report here. )
Watch Exclusive Video of marchers attempting to prevent skeptical banner from being seen.
The People’s Climate March initially officially rejected climate skeptics’ media credentials, despite the group being being pre-registered for media passes and meeting all requirements. March organizers informed us that we were “not a credible” news outlet and were therefore being denied media credentials which would have granted us access to speaker and VIP areas of the march. Prior to being told we were rejected, the organizers had given no indication that there was any kind of issue. After submitting our registration for media passes, we received regular media updates throughout the week.
But a few hours later, The People’s Climate March reversed their decision and issued media credentials for us at the march…sort of. We went to the main media tent and asked why we were not allowed to be credentialed. We saw on the media list that our entry on it had a huge red line through it, implying that we had been approved, but then red lined out and rejected.
After hearing that “space was limited” and “I only work here” and “not sure” why you can’t get credentials, we were directed to one of the heads of credentialing who finally approved our passes. I asked “ Do you really want another Berkeley” style incident here?
But even though we finally received our press passed, we had already missed most of the VIP area media availability, so the passes came a bit too late to have a full access to the attendees.
When we were finally allowed into the VIP area, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse recognized me from time as a former Sen. Inhofe staff as the Director of Communications for the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee and from the film “Merchants of Doubt” which smears climate skeptics (and which Whitehouse had a special screening on Capitol Hill).
I had a rousing interview with Whitehouse, but immediately after that, a whisper campaign in the VIP area …
Skeptics To Attend People’s Climate March – Will Feature Billboards Rejecting Premise of March and Hand Out New Report Debunking Marchers’ Claims
Contact: Marc Morano – 202-536-5052 – [email protected]
WASHINGTON DC, April 29, 2017 – Climate skeptics from the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) will be in attendance at the “People’s Climate March” in our nation’s capital on Saturday April 29 and will be bringing large billboards countering the premise of the march.
Images of billboards that will be at the march below:
The skeptics will also be handing out a newly released report “How to Talk Climate Change Issues 2017” offering a virtual A-Z debunking of the climate claims that will be heard at the march.
Click here for full report: “How to Talk Climate Change Issues 2017”
The “Talking Points Memo,” by veteran climate journalist Marc Morano of CFACT’s Climate Depot, is a complete skeptics’ guide for elected officials, media and the public on how to discuss global warming backed up by dozens of citations to peer-reviewed research.
“We look forward to wading into the crowds at the march and presenting the scientific facts to counter this utter nonsense, ” Morano said. “Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition,” he added.
The need for a “Talking Points Memo,” according to Morano, became evident after several government officials fared poorly in their attempts to defend a skeptical view of climate change in recent high-profile media interviews.
“It is obvious that many in Washington badly need information on how to articulate the case against man-made climate change fears,” he said.
Many of the arguments put forth by global warming advocates either embellish or distort the scientific facts on a host of issues, ranging from rising sea levels and global temperatures to polar caps to extreme weather and polar bears, among others. The “Talking Points Memo” is designed to arm people with important facts so they can better engage in climate change debate with those advocating the UN/Al Gore position. Footnotes are provided to substantiate all the claims made in the document.
Excerpt: “Global warming hype and hysteria have for
‘March for Science’ invokes God, Hitler, Gay Marriage, Racism, Sexism – Blames GOP for making climate worse
Climate Depot’s Round Up of Coverage of the alleged ‘March For Science’
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Having spent the day in DC on April 22 interviewing the marchers, it struck me about how this is first and foremost a march for endless government funding, ideology and in support of a no dissent policy. (Another new study gives plenty of reason to dissent: New Climate Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’) The Trump administration can help make science great again by resisting these pay up and shut up demands for taxpayer research money.” See: Bloomberg News: Obama ‘stashed’ $77 billion in ‘climate money’ across agencies to elude budget cuts
Watch: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer criticizes ‘March for Science’: ‘It is sort of a religious belief for them’ – Dr. Will Happer on Fox News: Asked about more government funded science? Happer: “We’ve had 8 years of very highly politicized so-called research on climate. It’s not what most of us would recognize as real scientific research. Something where the outcome was demanded before the funding was provided. We should tend to real environmental problems and fix them and stop chasing these phantom problems that are really just religious dogma.”
Pictures and reports about the ‘March for Science’
‘March for Science’: Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ – The early claims of 97% ‘consensus’: In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
Climatologist Dr. Roger A. Pielke Sr: “If there was any doubt the “March on Science” is political – The march is explicitly a political movement” See full article
The March is over:
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘The smartest people on the planet want to oppose Trump & the best they can come up with …
Climate Depot‘s Marc Morano, a skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, says this isn’t about science.
“The entire march is based on the premise that President Trump is destroying the earth, destroying the climate, and [that] this is going to be devastating,” he tells OneNewsNow.
Calling the March 29 march a “mass mobilization,” the national coordinator of the Peoples Climate Movement describes the Trump administration’s repeal of Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan as “a dangerous step that puts people and the planet at grave risk.”
Morano’s not buying it. “This is a standard political march with a climate label,” he states. “It’s going to be the usual suspects showing up – [and] I can’t imagine that they have anything new to add to this debate.”
He also points out that the science and models promoted by many of those groups even admit that regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and the United Nations treaties would have no impact on the climate.…
The leftist mainstream media are outraged that President Donald Trump appears to be sticking to his campaign promise to “cancel” U.S. participation in the Paris climate accord. The headline in The Washington Post is “Trump’s energy review blocks Group of Seven from consensus.” Politico’s headline is “Trump’s climate demands roil U.S. allies.” This follows Trump’s recent actions to rescind the foundation of Barack Obama’s climate change obsession.
Once again President Trump is being called a radical, when he is, in fact, restoring common sense to government policy. As Forbes reports, Trump’s recent seven-page executive order “lays the groundwork for rescinding” Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which is currently “suspended by the Supreme Court while a Washington appeals court considers its fate.” While Obama was known for his executive overreach (he lost in the Supreme Court more than any other president, including a record number of unanimous defeats), Trump is scaling back government interference in the marketplace that had been justified in the name of battling climate change.
“And so what President Trump did was he instructed the EPA to begin the process, through the regulatory process, of undoing something that should have been done through the legislature but wasn’t,” argues Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Chris Horner in a recent radio appearance. “This is the meta issue for the left,” he added. “It gives them what they have been demanding in the name of so many things, in the name of saving the planet.”
ClimateDepot.com is an indispensable website that keeps track of all relevant global warming news, and provides both sides of the debate. One very useful service it provides is the names and quotes from environmentalists, including former “warmists”—global warming believers—such as physicist Freeman Dyson: “An Obama supporter who describes himself as ‘100 per cent Democrat,’ Dyson says he is disappointed that the President ‘chose the wrong side.’ Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, and humanity doesn’t face an existential crisis. Climate change, he tells us, ‘is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?’”
Then there is Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: “Global warming is a non-problem,” he argues. “I say this to Obama: Excuse me,
‘Blindingly stupid’: Soros-funded LA Times report mocked for blaming 1989 Exxon Valdez spill on global warming
A report blaming the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in part on global warming has generated more ridicule than alarm, renewing scrutiny over the role of liberal foundations in keeping the fading #ExxonKnew social-media campaign alive.
The article, “The role a melting glacier played in Exxon’s biggest disaster,” earned a few hat tips from the environmental movement after appearing Thursday in the Los Angeles Times, but the taunting from climate-catastrophe challengers has been merciless.
“Blindingly stupid,” “climate change fan fiction,” “irrelevant” and “ridiculous” were among the insults hurled at the report, written by students from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Project.
“Anyone who has ever followed the story knows that the only ice responsible for the Exxon Valdez spill would be the ice cooling the captain’s many cocktails that night,” said Katie Brown of Energy in Depth, which is funded by the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “But for anti-Exxon campaigners, no alternate theories (or should we say alternative facts?) are too outrageous to publish.”
Not lost on critics were the project’s funders: left-of-center philanthropies, including those backed by the Rockefeller family and billionaire George Soros, that have made no secret of their support for climate advocacy and antipathy toward the fossil-fuel industry.
A disclosure at the end of the article said that the foundations “have no involvement in or influence over the articles produced by project fellows in collaboration with the Los Angeles Times,” but not everyone was buying it.
Roy W. Spencer, meteorologist and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, was also dubious, calling it “quite a stretch to blame the disaster on human-caused global warming.”
“Glaciers naturally flow to the ocean and calve. As long as it snows on them, gravity makes them flow to the ocean — no global warming required,” Mr. Spencer said in an email. “Even if calving increased in the 1980s, the warming in Alaska that abruptly started around 1980 was due to a shift in a natural climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), not the result of a slow warming trend due to humans.”
By the article’s logic, “anyone can blame basically anything that happens to them on climate change. Did you avoid a puddle when you hit that telephone pole? Sue Exxon!”
By Aly Nielsen | April 6, 2017 | 5:26 PM EDT
The Los Angeles Times has struck once again in a feeble attempt to sink ExxonMobil. This time, rewriting the story of a 28-year-old shipwreck.
The April 6 L.A. Times story, by Columbia Journalism School researchers, used 2,340 words to reject years of court cases and research. Instead, the agenda-driven story blamed the 1989 Exxon Valdez shipwreck and resulting oil spill on climate change.
The anti-Exxon hit piece is part of the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia Journalism School, which also produced the 2015 #ExxonKnew campaign. Both reports were published by the L.A. Times and funded by George Soros, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and The Rockefeller Family Fund. Steve Coll, Dean of the Columbia Journalism School, has been attacking Exxon for years and is tied to at least $1.6 million from Rockefeller foundations. He wrote a book smearing Exxon in 2013 while president of the New America Foundation.…
By Chris Woodward (OneNewsNow.com)
Action films, romantic comedies, and animations aren’t the only things coming to theaters this summer – so is Al Gore.
Gore: “The next generation would be justified in looking back at us and asking: ‘What were you thinking? Couldn’t you hear what the scientists were saying? Couldn’t you hear what Mother Nature was screaming at you?'”
That’s a portion of An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power – the follow-up to An Inconvenient Truth, which followed Gore on the lecture circuit as he tried to bring awareness to what the former vice president calls “dangerous man-made global warming” or “climate change.”
An Inconvenient Sequel will again document the environmental activist’s travels, along with his push for alternative energy and statements in 2016 from now-President Donald Trump. If you ask Marc Morano of Climate Depot, it appears that Gore is up to his old tricks again.
“We actually sent an undercover agent up to Robert Redford’s film festival in Utah and they got into the film,” says Morano. “I haven’t seen it myself, but the film sounds like it was going in one direction – [but] then Trump won and they had to do some quick rewrites. So now it’s a cautionary tale.”
Critics and news outlets have pointed out that An Inconvenient Truth was inaccurate when it hit the screens in 2006. Michael Bastach of The Daily Caller wrote in May 2016 that years later, Gore’s film is “still alarmingly inaccurate.” It was also in 2016 that Gore’s doomsday clock expired, causing David French to write “Apocalypse Delayed” in a related article for National Review. More recently, columnist Aaron Bandler documents what he categorizes as the “nine biggest lies” in the first installment.
Morano has also taken exception to things in An Inconvenient Truth.
“It appears Al Gore justifies his absurd claims of Florida being underwater by showing scenes of Hurricane Sandy flooding, as if that’s the sea-level rise,” says Morano about An Inconvenient Sequel. “First of all, he implied that sea level would be permanently rising, not a storm surge; and second, Sandy was a bad storm – but it still doesn’t account for the fact that hurricanes are actually on the decline and big, severe ones are unbelievably on the decline.”
An Inconvenient Sequel is due in theaters in late July. Meanwhile, Morano and the …