Repent Ye Sinners to Stop Bad Weather! Wash Post features theologian Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite urging us to ‘repent’ for our ‘sin’ of causing Typhoon Haiyan due to the ‘moral evil of climate change denial’ – ‘Suffering and the sin of climate change denial’
The book of revelation type claims made in the movie Ghostbusters has even been compared to the modern global warming movement. See: ‘The dead rising from the grave!’ Global warming claims imitate scene from 1984 comedy ‘Ghostbusters’ – ‘A disaster of biblical proportions…real wrath of God type stuff’
Global warming religion advances: ‘Sin, guilt, tithes, penance, punishment, sacrifice, and now we have the sacred peer-reviewed scriptures’ – Climate Depot’s Exclusive Round up of Religion climate claims
Sundance filmgoers warn of ‘global warming’ impacts: ‘It affects our ability to reproduce’ – Warn ‘criminal’ deniers: ‘We are coming for you’
Inconvenient Question: Gore asked about failed ’10-year tipping’ point – Refuses to answer, enters SUV in snow
PARK CITY — In January 2006, former Vice President Al Gore predicted, when his first film “An Inconvenient Truth” was first premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, that earth would be in “a true planetary emergency” within the next ten years. According to CBS News, Gore warned in January 2006 that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.”
Fast forward to January 2017, Climate Depot has sent an undercover agent to Robert Redford’s snow filled Sundance Film Festival in Utah this week as Gore debuted his new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel.” The sequel thus far has been met with poor reviews. Vox.com review of Gore’s sequel: ‘Unfortunately, the filmmaking is, alas, not very good…like watching taped lectures’ & ‘Superhero tragedy disguised as end-times environmental doc’ – Gore ‘sequel is a superhero movie about a sad Al Gore’
Meanwhile, climate skeptics are not expecting much from Gore. See: Weather Channel Founder John Coleman: Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’ Will Be Another ‘Scientific Monstrosity’ & Skeptical Film ‘Climate Hustle’ Now Available As ‘Streaming Video On Demand’ to Greet Gore’s Sequel
Climate Depot’s secret undercover agent caught up with Gore on Saturday January 21 in the late afternoon while Gore was exiting a private party at the Zoom restaurant in Park City Utah.
Gore was trudging through the snow to his oversized Chevy Suburban SUV, when the undercover agent asked an inconvenient question of Gore.
Climate Depot’s Undercover reporter at Sundance: “Hey Al, I just saw ‘Inconvenient’.”
Gore: “Oh great, thank you!”
Climate Depot’s Undercover reporter at Sundance: “My friends make fun of me about the 10-year tipping point, what do I tell them?”
Gore: “Well, we gotta keep working.” Gore then gives a momentary stare and then ignores the question and enters his “Executive Car Service” Chevy Suburban and departs on the snowy street.
Below video shows Gore’s massive gas-guzzling SUV (Chevy Suburban) prepping for Gore’s pick up on the snow streets of Utah.
Climate skeptics have been quick to point out that Gore’s predictions have failed and the evidence for man-made climate change has grown weaker. See: Climate Report to UN: Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit & Load of bollocks: 2016 allegedly ‘hottest year’ by unmeasureable 1/100 of a degree – While satellites show …
Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100
Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has come out denouncing the UN climate Paris agreement as a massive waste of money that will do nothing to impact climate change. In a January 16, 2017 Prager U video titled, “The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate,” Lomborg explains that “the agreement will cost a fortune, but do little to reduce global warming.” (Full transcript here)
Lomborg ridiculed the UN Paris agreement supporters as making “grand pronouncements and vague specifics.”
Lomborg first took his analytical skills to take apart President Obama’s EPA climate regulations done through executive order.
“Using the same prediction model that the UN uses, I found that [Obama’s] power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century — the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just -.023 degrees Fahrenheit,” Lomborg explained.
“In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees. To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century,” Lomborg said.
Lomborg continued, aiming his analysis at the much touted UN paris climate agreement.
“Now, let’s add in the rest of the world’s Paris promises. If we generously assume that the promised carbon cuts for 2030 are not only met — which itself would be a UN first — but sustained throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop 0.3 degrees — the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model,” Lomborg said.
He continued: “But here is the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and …
Watch: Dr. Will Happer shares his hatemail: ‘You are a f@cking uneducated Nazi. I hope you hang by the neck until you are dead’
Peter Dizikes | MIT News Office
January 9, 2017
Amid record temperatures and rising sea levels that stem in large part from carbon emissions, Kerry stated, we must act quickly “to avoid the catastrophe we will inevitably see if we allow carbon emissions to go up, and up, and up.” Moreover, he added, “We need to speed it up dramatically because we are in a race against time.”
However, speaking before a capacity audience of about 250 people in MIT’s Samberg Conference Center, Kerry talked at greater length about the upsides of a prospective clean-energy revolution, referencing the falling prices of wind and solar power and observing that by making renewable energy a major growth industry, “we can put millions of people to work.”
The speech constituted one of the last major public statements Kerry is expected to make on climate change as Secretary of State before he leaves office with the change of administration later this month. Climate change efforts have been a key part of Kerry’s portfolio, and he highlighted the State Department’s recent work on the topic.
Kerry hailed the 2015 Paris Agreement, in which over 190 countries agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and contended that the extensive bilateral U.S.-China climate negotiations, leading to a 2014 announcement of climate cooperation, “changed the whole playing field” by showing how committed the two countries were to an evolving approach on energy.
The Paris Agreement also signaled to entrepreneurs, innovators, and investors that the renewable energy sector would remain a growth industry, Kerry said, and he called on his audience to participate in the transformation of energy.
“Brilliant minds trained at MIT are behind some of the most transformative innovations in history,” Kerry said, suggesting the Institute’s students and entrepreneurs could help mitigate climate change while developing “the greatest economic opportunity the world has ever known.”
Maria Zuber, MIT’s vice president for research, introduced Kerry before
We Americans may be inadvertently killing her infant son. Climate change, disproportionately caused by carbon emissions from America, seems to be behind a severe drought that has led crops to wilt across seven countries in southern Africa. The result is acute malnutrition for 1.3 million children in the region, the United Nations says.
Trump has repeatedly mocked climate change, once even calling it a hoax fabricated by China. But climate change here is as tangible as its victims. Trump should come and feel these children’s ribs and watch them struggle for life. It’s true that the links between our carbon emissions and any particular drought are convoluted, but over all, climate change is as palpable as a wizened, glassy-eyed child dying of starvation. Like Ranomasy’s 18-month-old son, Tsapasoa.
Southern Africa’s drought and food crisis have gone largely unnoticed around the world. The situation has been particularly severe in Madagascar, a lovely island nation known for deserted sandy beaches and playful long-tailed primates called lemurs.
But the southern part of the island doesn’t look anything like the animated movie “Madagascar”: Families are slowly starving because rains and crops have failed for the last few years. They are reduced to eating cactus and even rocks or ashes. The United Nations estimates that nearly one million people in Madagascar alone need emergency food assistance.
The immediate cause of the droughts was an extremely warm El Niño event, which came on top of a larger drying trend in the last few decades in parts of Africa. New research, just published in the bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, concludes that human-caused climate change exacerbated El Niño’s intensity and significantly reduced rainfall in parts of Ethiopia and southern Africa.
The researchers calculated that human contributions to global warming reduced water runoff in southern Africa by 48 percent and concluded that these human contributions “have contributed to substantial food crises.”
Climate Depot Response:
Unfortunately, the New York Times does not have science on its side. Droughts are not worse during the age of “global warming.” Not only are global droughts not increasing, but the notion that you can attribute them to “global warming” is not valid.
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer in 2016: “Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, …
Watch: ‘You just made the claim!’: Warmist Prof. hilariously fails to name source of 98% ‘consensus’ claim
A college professor claimed that “98 percent of the world’s scientists” agree that manmade climate change is real — but things soon became awkward when Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked the academic to name the source of his information on-air.
“I am interested in the claims you’ve made about climate science, that it’s settled, and that 98 percent of worldwide scientists believe that. How do you know that? Are you a scientist or have you polled other scientists? Where did you get that figure?” Carlson asked California State University-Sacramento professor Joseph Palermo on Wednesday.
Palermo clearly wasn’t prepared to defend his previous assertion.
“Well, see, that’s another one of those interesting kind of questions is that, that wasn’t what the blog was about,” Palermo replied, referencing “right-wing websites” misconstruing science for “catchy headlines” and “clickbait.”
But Carlson was determined to get an answer. So he asked the question a second time.
Palermo dodged the question again, saying, “I didn’t want to get into — are you a climate change denier, or a skeptic?”
That’s when Carlson laid into the academic, reminding him that not taking everything at face value is how science works.
“The essence of science, and of journalism,” Carlson said, “is skepticism, because it seeks to get to the truth.”
“And I’m asking as you as someone who just said, as a statement of fact, that 98 percent of the world’s scientists agree with you, with whatever you believe, I’m wondering how you know that,” Carlson added.
Palermo avoided providing evidence to his claim twice more. At one point, he even urged Carlson to send out his “giant research team” to “find out about it,” a suggestion that prompted a good laugh from the Fox News host.
“You just made the claim!” Carlson pointed out.
The questioning of Blackburn came during a discussion on Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency and a skeptic of climate-change science.
Cuomo asked Blackburn, vice chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, for her views on Pruitt and whether he would “be someone who denies” the “basic science” of climate change.
Blackburn said Pruitt “understands” the “heavy burden” the EPA has placed on businesses across the country through regulation. She said, however, that everyone remained in favor of clean air and water.
“Can you be for clean air and water if you do not believe that man has a hand in global warming?” Cuomo asked.
“Of course you can be a believer in clean air and clean water and realize that when you work at global warming or climate change, as it is now popularly called, that it is cyclical and you have to look at it in terms of centuries, not in terms of decades,” Blackburn said.
The congresswoman added: “And the science around that is not a settled science.”
Cuomo, taken slightly aback, asked Blackburn bluntly if she agreed that human actives “contribute greatly to what is warming our planet over time.”
“Do you accept that?” he asked.
“I think that there are those who would say, ‘No, it is more of a cyclical process.’ There are those that will say that we do think humans have something to do with it,” Blackburn replied.
“It’s not some though, congresswoman,” Cuomo quipped. “You know — it’s an overwhelming scientific consensus on the notion of whether man-made activities negatively impact global warming. It’s not an open debate within the scientific community. It is a big majority and a small group of people that resist it.”
Cuomo reiterated that he was “talking about the basic science” and whether she and Pruitt agreed with it.
“The fact is that there is still debate about that and the participation of human beings in this,” Blackburn said. “We all will agree we want the Earth to stay healthy. We want clean air, we want clean water.”
The congresswoman said, however, that it was important to “make certain that we are able to have the energy that is necessary to fuel a productive economy.”…
Princeton Physicist: ‘If global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago’
Despite all the hype around the global warming computer models and climate science predictions – reality has not confirmed the often repeated doomsday claims. Stefan Molyneux speak with William Happer about the flaws in the climate science models, obvious errors which have been overlooked, the demonization of CO2 and the implicit bias within climate science.
William Happer is a professor at Princeton University in the field of atomic physics, optics, and spectroscopy. He is a Director with the CO2 Coalition and served as the Department of Energy’s Office of Science Director under the George H. W. Bush administration. Dr. Happer will be speaking at the “Global-Warming: An Inconvenient Lie” conference in Phoenix, Arizona from December 2-4th, 2016.
An Inconvenient Lie Conference: http://www.inconvenientlie.com
Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com