Climate Change Scammers' Worst Week Ever

al-gore-bd-suitBy Kurt Schlichter

Between global warming suckers getting entombed in ice while trying to prove the Antarctic ice cap has melted to most of America doing a Frigidaire impression, the entire facade of this bogus leftist power grab is crumbling.

Understand that the climate change meme is simply the latest attempt by leftists to trick society into remaking itself in their image. It was never about science. It was always about power and money.

The scammers have been ably assisted by a palace guard media that eagerly reports the scammers’ every lie while ignoring every inconvenient truth. You’ll skim the mainstream media in vain for the reason behind the trapped expedition’s trip to the Antarctic. And, of course, the most inconvenient truth of all is that it hasn’t gotten significantly warmer since the industrial revolution started generating CO2, and it hasn’t warmed at all in recent years.

Read the rest at Townhall.

  • This piece really describes what I have thought ever since I heard Eyeore say the science is settled, and I started to read about what people who disagreed with AGW were saying. But I’m not happy. I don’t know, it’s nice to know that I’ve been right all along, but there are still so many people, dupes really, who still believe and will always believe no matter what the facts are. And I think they can’t be reached. They will not allow anything to disrupt their beliefs no matter how many facts you expose them to. And they will always have these activist scientists, like Mann et al, who give them false data, computer model predictions, and a whole bunch of websites that bolster that BS to continue believing it. I feel kind of sad about that.

    • Sorry, I left out the politicians. Them too! Look at this.
      http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114

      “Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.

      Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues’ signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they’re ignoring global warming.”

      This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about!

    • sam w

      CO2 has no effect on climate either up or down.Fact, the average human exhales 2.4 lbs of CO2 daily, there are 7,000,000,000 of us on this planet.Dothe math, that is in excess of 3 billion tons per year.Yet CO2 makes up only .04% of our atmosphere and the total variance is only .001%

  • Rob N. Hood

    So when records, or extended near record heat occurs, it’s nothing to get excited about- it’s just normal temp fluctuation. But when we experience (normal) cold temps that happen to be slightly cooler than the last few years it’s PROOF that the Earth is not warming. I see.

    • When those things occur on the warm side it is the true believers who hold that up as proof of CAGW, I think it’s only fair to proclaim bunk when there is record cold.

    • Dennis J. Swearingen

      Dude these ridiculous people who created this site are seriously that dumb. They will never understand or even take the time to consider what you just mentioned. I am glad you mentioned that I wouldn’t be surprised if the as I guess I can now assume “RIGHTIST” moderator on this site deleted my reply to you. Lol.

  • Rob N. Hood

    A society consisting of the sum of its vanity and greed is not a society at all but a state of war. – Lewis Lapham

    • David Hambleton

      A pseudonym stuck in the vanity of letting a religious entity dictate what science is science and that “the science is complete” when their dogma is (however weakly and temporally) “vindicated” is not a thinking person at all, but a truly (and sadly, imho) devotee of the Consensus of Followers of AGM. Your religion, Rob N. has become all that the ancient Roman church has been blamed of. You were made for better than they are indoctrinating you to be. Think, Man!

    • “A society consisting of the sum of its vanity and greed is not a society at all but a state of war. – Lewis Lapham”

      I have no idea what this means, or what you mean by posting it. It makes no sense in terms of context, or in its literal meaning. I mean, really, look up the definition of the word “war”.

  • Rob N. Hood

    It is not my quote, so you figure it out or not, as you wish. I posted it merely to cause “thinking” in general, which should not be threatening to anyone let alone you “free and deep” thinkers, such as you purport yourselves to be. Once again, you all are trying to shame me into conforming to your, and this site’s, own form of religion. You guys not only have your anti-climate change religion, it is actually more of a cult, based on the definition of each.

    • I didn’t say it was your quote. It is meaningless dribble.

      • Rob N. Hood

        The word you are looking for is DRIVEL, of which you are King.

        • Well, dribble drabble, drivel dravel! Dribble is a related word to drivel, but not in the sense that I meant it. So yes, drivel is the word I should have used as it holds the precise meaning to my sentiment. Thanks, I think.

        • jay

          Once again, you all are trying to shame me into conforming to your, and this site’s, own form of religion. You guys not only have your anti-climate change religion, it is actually more of a cult, based on the definition of each.

          How is us saying “you are wrong, the data is not complete” any more cult like than saying” the masses are right, the end is now”?

  • John McCarthy

    It seems counter-intuitive that a higher global temperature average would cause some locations to experience colder-than-usual weather. The theory behind climate change is based upon the entire world’s average temperature, so while North America was freezing during the polar vortex, other places like Australia had record high temperatures. It’s possible for the global average to be still rising while some localized weather conditions experience a cooling trend over a period of years.

    Do you folks think that historical satillite imagery showing Antarctica, ice tens of thousands of years old, shrinking rapidly since the industrial revolution, is made up by the government? Google image search it. Have you read about ice cores that show carbon dioxide levels over the past tens of thousands of years? Do you think graphs showing CO2 PPM in the atmosphere are made up? I am genuinely curious.

    • It does seem counter-intuitive that a higher global temperature average would cause some locations to experience colder-than-usual weather. But the problem there is that global average temperatures have not risen in the last 16 years.
      Google that.

      This from a story recently posted here.
      “Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which suggested that the shelf’s melt does not result from human-driven global warming.”

      When things occur on a large scale, such as the polar icecaps shrinking or growing, they are responding to conditions on very large timescales hundreds, or thousands of years long. It is easy to think that because the ice appears to have started shrinking around the time of the industrial revolution that the industrial revolution was the cause of it. But that is the very problem we have with all of this AGW talk. The climate, as you know, is constantly changing. It has done so long before we were here, and will continue to do so as long as this planet exists. Therefore, when there is some kind of change in the climate the climate alarmists can point to it and plausibly claim that it is caused by human activity, when in reality there is no evidence whatsoever that that is factually the case.
      The truth is that when the climate alarmists at the IPCC and their friends in the media began to warn, shrilly, that CO2 was causing the planet to warm, all of their predictions said that by this time we would be experiencing warming of 0.15-0.5 deg. C per decade. Not the paltry 0.03 deg. C per decade that we have actually experienced. Which does not exceed natural variability.
      Come on man, none of the shrill, dire warnings of decades past have come to pass. Yet you still think there is some validity to them?

      • jay

        Have you ever used a program that worked perfectly? All of the models are derived from computer programs. No program is better that the weakest programmer on the team. Show me science based on experimentation in the real world. You can cram your computer models.

    • What caused the glaciers to retreat at the end of the last ice age?

      Do you think that ice should be in some kind of permanent unchanging state, when even mountains made of stone are not?

      Ice melts. Water freezes again. The earth has gone through huge fluctuations in climate over millennia. No sane person would dispute that the Earth’s climate changes. If it didn’t, I’d be standing on a glacier right now in Minneapolis and the Great Lakes wouldn’t exist.

      Heck – even the continents don’t stay put!

      What’s disputed (largely) is the scammers who try to blame mankind for natural (mostly solar-driven) climate changes that have been occurring since the dawn of the Earth.

      • Rob N. Hood

        “mostly solar driven” … So, what causes the rest of it, in your “humble” opinion?

  • Dennis J. Swearingen

    This site is so lame. Seriously I don’t believe in global warming either. Get over yourselves.
    (Comment edited for length. This pretty much sums it up.-Moderator)

  • Don B. Gone

    Global Warming (as caused by humans) is the new Scientology for the left.
    The religious overtones cannot be ignored.
    “we are all guilty”
    “we are over consuming”
    “life is to comfortable”
    “redefine prosperity”
    “peak oil”
    The far left needs a narrative. Most statist who think the government should control
    society need a narrative. A narrative of extinction always works. Adolph used such
    narrative to promote his ‘statist’ society.
    GW is simply the far left approach to control us from edibles to excretion. It spawns
    their entire manifesto. Live in crowded sardine apts, sprawl is bad, no cars, use bikes.
    These reactionaries to technological changes in society occur in 100 year cycles of doomsday scenarios.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Actually the anti-science Right is the “new scientology”, or in other words, a cult. And why hasn’t anyone posted anything about this “being the coldest Superbowl ever” (potentially)?! That’s just another reason for dismissing the majority of the world’s scientists and their lame ideas/beliefs!

    And what taxes have been raised to begin the so-called new world order by the Left, at least in the USA? None.

    • There you go with that “majority of the world’s scientists” line again. It is not true. It is propaganda. Yet you cling to it as though it means everything. It was a non-scientific online survey that 77 published climate scientists answered “yes” to a vague question. It is laughable!

    • Justin P.

      My taxes were raised in the beginning of 2013 after the Obama ” elections ” took place. Literally I got my paycheck at the end of 2012 and then a new one at the beginning of 2013 and they started taking out more taxes every check even though everything filed for my taxes was untouched. That’s the taxes that have been raised for the nwo.

  • Oil_Robb

    LOLOL….some of these leftist libtards are all talk. If they are so committed to their cause then why are they participating in this so called destruction of the planet. They will not stop doing everything possible when it comes to using carbon, they are liars and hypocrits.

    • Yes, some are all talk. I’m not worried about the “all talk” people. I am worried about the ones that take action.

  • Lefty

    I love these articles that go on and on and on about how the science is a scam but don’t go into what the actual scientific evidence is or dispute it with scientific evidence of their own. all the more reputable scientific deniers (like Lindzen) agree with the basic premise: co2 causes the earth to warm and man made co2 is making the planet warmer. So if the basic premise is undisputed then we are talking about whether the man made effect is significant enough to be harmful. No where in this article does it get to the heart of the matter and concede that. It’s a long ideological/ ad hominen attack about some sort of hoax by scientists who are allegedly bought. Well let’s look at the data: in the last 15,000 years there has only been a variation of 2C in the overall temperature (with an overall cooling trend until last 150 years). Within the past 150 years we’ve increased the global temperature 1C (most of that coming in the last 40 years). The only explanation is man made co2. Even the deniers don’t have an alternative “natural” explanation for this change. If in 150 years we’ve been able to change the atmosphere this much then it’s a global conspiracy to extrapolate that by suggesting that if we get 1 to 3C higher in the next 80 years then it could create problems for civilization? Clearly even if you agree with the science deniers it’s still in the range of possibility and reasonable and not a global conspiracy hoax. This rant implies that co2 emissions are not causing warming and if that’s your argument there is literally no scientific evidence for that view. Read the weekly standard piece you cite the denier Lindze agrees with basic premise. That is my main gripe: Lindzen agrees co2 causes earth to warm our blogger friend here then twists and runs with lindzens denial expanding by claiming the entire premise is a hoax. If you have evidence that the earth is not going to warm as much as alarmists predict i’d love to hear it because nowhere in your rant or the weekly standard piece do they bring it up and if it’s on this site I’d love to read it.

  • “This rant implies that co2 emissions are not causing warming and if that’s your argument there is literally no scientific evidence for that view.” -Lefty.

    That’s right, Lefty. The argument is about how much, or how little warming will, or will not occur from CO2 forcing. Your assertion that “it must be CO2” is telling in that it appears you have already made up your mind about it. Nothing wrong with that, at least you are not in the squishy middle, trying to conduct a balancing act on the fence. I can respect that. But I do, however, disagree with you on that. As young as climate science is, it is foolish to say with any certainty that CO2 is the sole cause of the latest warming. How do you explain the mystery of the pause? Global average temperatures have not risen in the last 16 years, yet CO2 levels have risen to over 400ppm. If, in fact, CO2 is the reason for the warming, why has it not continued to rise concurrently with CO2 levels? The truth is that we actually know very little about how the atmosphere really works, and at our current level of understanding we have barely scratched the surface of what is what, and what does what.

    The following is some peer-reviewed science on CO2 warming that does not agree with the assertions of catastrophic warming such as you think may occur. Enjoy! 🙂

    The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
    (Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp. 331-353, 1975)
    – Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

    Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
    (Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
    – Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

    CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    Revised 21st century temperature projections (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
    – Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

    Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system (PDF)
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
    – Stephen E. Schwartz

    Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008)
    – Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

    There’s more here:http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Sensitivity

  • Lefty

    “How do you explain the mystery of the pause.” It’s not a mystery a simple google search will explain it but here is a summary: climate scientists have never claimed that the rate of surface temperature rise will be constant there will always be other natural factors that can influence the rate up or down. The rise in temperature has not kept pace with the models but the models are meant to project long term trends and will not always apply to shorter periods of time. In addition this is only a slow down in the rate of temperature increase and not a lowering of the actual temperature which has stayed record breaking high since 1998: the top 10 warmest years on record since 1850 were all in the 2000s except 1998. The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s which were warmer than the 1980s. So yes there has been a pause in the rate of growth but that is not outside what is to be expected in such a short period of time. The increase in tempurature is clear. Let me ask you a question: if CO2 does not explain the rise in temperatures in the last 150 years what does?

    • Sorry, but I’ve been around for a while, and have been paying attention to this issue since the late 80’s. So I know what you are saying is revisionist. I remember the dire warnings and calls for action, and the predictions from back then were predicting rapid temperature rise. All of the models predicted 6 deg. C per decade. They were wrong. Period.

      https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/abstracts/12/2/JEQ0120020159
      “Analyses of data from a number of sources indicate that (i) there was a gradual increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentration from about 1860 to 1945, (ii) there has been a much more rapid rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1945 to the present, (iii) the most recent trend of global surface air temperature during this period of rapid CO2 increase has been downwards, which is in contradiction to the predictions of the most sophisticated general circulational models of the atmosphere in use today, (iv) this downward trend in surface air temperature has been most pronounced in northern latitudes, which is also in contrast to the model predictions, and (v) the downward temperature trend has been greater in summer than in winter, which is again in contradiction to the models. It is thus concluded that the theoretical numerical models of the atmosphere are grossly in error in their predictions of future CO2 effects on world climate, as is also suggested by several recent empirical studies.”

  • Lefty

    Fortunately for both of us what the scientists actually said is available to read. The first IPCC in 1990 predicted that global surface temperature would rise between .1 and .35 C per decade and the evidence has shown that from 1990 to 2012 the rate was .15C well within the range of the models. Again the report also said that not every single decade will go up that much. Now are you going to tell me that a more accurate projection of warming of global surface temperature is possible by looking at the period 1998 to 2012 rather than a larger period 1990 to 2012? The 6 C prediction is the worst case scenario that we could reach in 2100 per the newest IPCC. No one ever said we would reach that per decade. The sherwood article you cite is another example of cherry picking the data. 1983 is perfect point to deny warming because it immediately follows a cooling period (because of factors other that CO2). However the rate of warming jumps up again in the period right after 1983 so the subsequent data have shown that study to be misleading and picking the perfect point to under emphasis the growth of global surface twmperature. Google global surface temperature and tell me the graphs don’t show continuing overall rise in warming offset for periods of 10-15 by other factors?

    • My mistake, I remember James Hansen saying that world temperatures could rise by six degrees by the end of the decade, that’s where I got that from, so…….. WOOPS!

      But, I do have to point out that you are also incorrect. This is from IPCC AR1:

      “Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under other … scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2 oC [to] about 0.1 oC per decade.”

      0.15 deg. C was in the range of uncertainty, certainly, but an increase of 0.2-0.1 deg. C per decade were from “scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls”, not from scenarios that assume an increase of atmospheric CO2 to over 400ppm.

      Another thing too, Lefty, I don’t care what charts you’re looking at from google. I posted a peer-reviewed scientific paper that says otherwise. That’s what you claimed was lacking from the article, that’s what you wanted, I was just trying to give you what you wanted.
      I can find you a thousand articles, and charts, on google about aliens, and flying saucers too. It doesn’t mean that they’re real.

      • Look, I wasn’t always skeptical of AGW. I really did believe it, as you do, a long time ago. The trouble started, for me, when Al Gore made the assertion that the debate was over, and the science was settled. At first I wanted to believe that. But somewhere in the back of my mind I had the seed of doubt, so I decided to do a little research on what he claimed. Was the debate over? Was the science settled? I found the answer to both of those questions was a big fat resounding NO!!!!
        Looking for more answers, I found a website called Friends of Science where I found a whole bunch of scientists that countered the claims of the IPCC. And what made me believe what they were saying was more their manner than anything else. It wasn’t the shrill, we have to act now to save the world, kind of accusatory browbeating you got from the IPCC supporters like Mr. Gore. No, it was just matter of fact, straightforward, common sense, nerdy science. Have a look for yourself.
        http://www.friendsofscience.org/

  • Lefty

    Hey I think you were right in your earlier post the 1st ipcc prediction in the range I had (.15) was based on a reduction of co2 which obviously didn’t happen. However the main weakness I see in your overall argument is that you jump on any inaccuracy in the models to say that global warming won’t be that harmful to society. I think that’s a possibility but whether the models can accurately predict decade by decade growth doesn’t change the fact that there has been and continues to be decade by decade growth. So your essentially nibbling around the edges of the core argument without a persuasive argument against (and this is looking backward without models) we’ve had .85 C growth in the last 100 years and every ipcc that number has increased. Now this could be a “natural phenomenon”, but it’s a little worrisome when it goes exactly along with the overall theory. I appreciate the links and will let you know what I think. I am just trying to learn about the science as well and am trying to just make an opinion on the data. Neither side has a monopoly on shrill, vitriol or self-righteousness. I understand peoples perspective when they think that environmentalists are criticizing their way of life. However that doesn’t change what the facts are up to today irrespective of the alleged weakness of the models.

    • “You jump on any inaccuracy in the models to say that global warming won’t be that harmful to society.” -Lefty

      The reason for that is because those models, for years, have been used as a hammer to pound skeptics over the head.
      I have never claimed, or believed, that there was no change in the climate. I have always maintained that the climate constantly changes. I have never claimed that those changes will not be harmful to society. What I do say is that climate models are only as good as their programming, and that we do not know all of the factors that affect the climate. And, that the climate modelers have a certain level of bias that makes its way into their models. If you tell a computer that there is a race of crazy aliens on Mars that want to conquer Earth, you will get a computer projection that says that invasion from crazy Martians is imminent!
      I have done a lot of research into CO2, and the way that it absorbs and re-radiates IR radiation, and from what I can see, and I am not a scientist, I’m a heating and air conditioning technician, but from what I can see it is not possible for CO2 to create the kind of warming that the models say it will.
      Couple that with the fact that the “solutions” that have been proposed are the exact things that the Leftist Environmentalists have been calling for since the beginning of the environmentalist movement. I’m telling you this is all predicated upon the anti-capitalist, pro-socialist agenda, and it is just a vehicle for those aims, and nothing more than that. They don’t care about the environment, and they don’t care about people, or how what they want to do will affect the lives of everyone. They just want power. And what better way to control everything than to get control over CO2? It is a byproduct of just about every manufacturing process, and practically every activity, up to and including respiration. You might think I’m a nut, and maybe I am, but when someone proposes that we wear masks with CO2 capture bags, you just remember what I have said here.

  • Lefty

    Socialists don’t exist anymore or at least I Havnt met one since 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down. I am a capitalist as are most people. Do you think I wanna get rid of my car? I love having cheap plentiful energy as do most people like me. I just believe that the science is compelling and if markets are not going to produce an immediate solution then global cooperation and a nudge from the government is needed. The free market needs to be incentivized to stop using carbon because the normal laws of supply and demand don’t work for a global problem like this. Again the models are only one component but as I said in my last post the data we have outside the models can also be used because all of that evidence also supports global warming. The website you sent had a bunch of interesting graphs but not contradict the main thrust that since the industrial revolution the tempurature and carbon have both been going up. Show me a graph that contradicts that and I will find the skeptics position more credible. All the “other factors” you mention are also being studied and our knowledge is growing, but just because there is uncertainty doesn’t mean we can’t make conclusions on the stuff we know.

  • I’m sorry, Are you serious? At first I thought you were but now I’m not so sure. There are just too many things wrong with what you’re saying here that makes me think you are just jerking our chain. The first thing is obviously “Socialists don’t exist anymore.” That’s just ridiculous.
    The second is “The free market needs to be incentivized to stop using carbon.”
    There are a couple of things wrong with that. If a free market needs to be incentivized it is no longer a free market. And nobody “uses” carbon, except to make graphite, or steel. Carbon is not the issue, Carbon Dioxide is the issue. And nobody “uses” Carbon Dioxide except to make carbonated beverages, BB gun propellant cartridges, or fire extinguishers. Carbon Dioxide is mainly a byproduct of combustion, and other chemical processes.
    What good is a chart going to do if you don’t even understand the difference between Carbon, and Carbon Dioxide?

  • Mikki Gilmore

    If people are causing global warming, get rid of all of them. Then the earth can go back to having its ice ages and comets bombarding the planet without politicians screaming, “Let the government take care of it.” Right.

  • Richard T. Sokol

    What happened 20,000 years ago and most refer to as the ice age was actually a glaciel cycle of which there have been at least 20 since the peak of the ice age 3 million years ago. That’s the ice age we’re coming out of. Yes, Mother Earth warming right now and WE DON”T KNOW when she’ll begin cooling. Much can happen. Determining the role of our behavior in all this is pointless. It’s going to happen. NEXT…Many believe everything should be regulated. Global Warming is a perfect tool for them. We’re going to have too much energy in the near future. The price may tumble and all the haves in the world will lose power. But…If we have a GLOBAL TAX ON THE AIR problem solved. I do believe folks should start moving to higher ground to be on the safe side.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.