Science Facts: US exit avoids Big Problems in the Paris Climate Agreement that are Bad for America

Science Facts:

US exit avoids Big Problems in the Paris Climate Agreement that are Bad for America

Every Bad Thing We Will Avoid By Rejecting the Paris Climate Agreement

The biggest cause of “Global Warming” is from the Hot Air of politicians, not from hardworking Americans. ~C.D.

John Carney

The president formally announced this week that the U.S. will exit the Paris climate agreement, a move that will have negligible impact on the environment but will have major benefits for the U.S. economy.

The Paris climate agreement was deeply flawed from its start. It was legally and constitutionally suspect, based on politics rather than science, and contained unrealistic goals. It promised not only a dramatic expansion of the administrative state and a huge increase in the regulatory burden on American businesses, it threatened to put the brakes on U.S. economic output at a time when most economists think the U.S. will struggle to achieve even a meager two percent growth.

It’s likely that it was already acting as a drag on the U.S. economy. After President Barack Obama unofficially committed the U.S. to the Paris agreement, businesses began preparing for its impact. Knowing that it would diminish U.S. economic output, businesses invested less and directed more investment toward less-productive technology to meet the climate deal’s mandates. Banks and financiers withdrew capital from sectors expected to suffer under the climate deal and pushed it toward those expected to benefit. A classic example of regulation-driven malinvestment.

The Paris climate agreement was adopted on December 12, 2015 at the conclusion of the United Nation’s Climate Change Conference. Parties to the agreement are expected to begin taking measures to reduce emissions in 2020, mainly by enacting rules that sharply reduce carbon emissions. Countries are supposed to publicly announce “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to combat climate change and periodically report on their progress.  The Obama administration announced the U.S. would commit to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a quarter of which was supposedly achievable by the implementation of the previous administration’s legally-questionable Clean Power Plan.

To get the rest of the way, the U.S. would have to make major investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner motor vehicles. This likely explains why the Paris climate deal was so popular with many in Silicon Valley and many on Wall Street. It promised a bonanza of spending and investment, most likely subsidized by taxpayers, in technologies that wouldn’t otherwise be attractive. It was practically calling out for making self-driving, solar powered cars mandatory.

Dropping out of the agreement will let the U.S. avoid several deleterious effects of the agreement.

1.Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.

2.Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for his great cartoon

3.Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.

4.Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big Business. Big businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.

5.Making America Poorer Again.  A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less. 

6.Much Poorer. The overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.

The Paris deal was, in short, a disaster for America and a nothing-burger for climat

Truth Matters: Science Facts vs. Climate Change Hoax; Protesters Paid to Riot; Clinton Uranium Deal

Truth Matters:

Science Facts vs. Climate Change Hoax; Protesters Paid to Riot; Clinton Uranium Deal

Science Facts vs. Climate Change Hoax Update

Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: This is a pure fantasy. This is pure fantasy. There is nothing of substance here. The headline alone: “Al Gore’s New Group Demands $15 Trillion To Fight Global Warming.” Fifteen trillion to fight global warming.

Now, in a sane world this would constitute such extreme overreach that the person behind this request or claim would be forever discredited. Fifteen trillion to fight climate change? The U.S. national debt is $19 trillion. Now, Algore and his group — by the way, who is Algore’s group? Well, it says here they’re a group of executives, as in CEOs who want to fight global warming, “has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.”

Six hundred billion a year. This is multiple countries spending $600 billion a year for 20 years, total $15 trillion. Not companies. Countries. Algore and his group are asking the governments of the world to give him $15 trillion, him and his group. That’s what they’re asking for. They’re making no bones about it. Give us 15 trill. Yeah, what are you gonna do with it? “Well, we’re gonna fight climate change.” How you gonna do that? “Well, we’re gonna invest in all kinds of new technology, deploy solar panels and we’re gonna do electric cars and we’re gonna have windmills and whatever the hell else is green energy.”

Do you realize the solar panel industry itself, you want to talk about fraud. The amount of energy that is created, produced by solar panels is so tiny, it’s immeasurable, and if you have a cloudy day, you’re stuck. I look at Apple, and I know Algore’s on the board out there and they’ve got a social justice warrior for CEO. And they’ve got as one of their executives Obama’s former EPA director, Lisa Jackson, and they’re building that giant new spaceship campus out there. And on the roof of every building in this complex is solar panels. And I’m here to tell you that the vast majority of that is image and marketing.

Do you know what happens when a solar panel wears out? Do you have any idea how large these things are? Do you know what disposing them consists of? Do you know the absolute mess, the polluted mess getting rid of a bunch of them? How come the solar industry, despite massive expenditures like this and like Apple’s big building out there and all these government subsidies and programs, why isn’t the solar industry profitable?

I mean, this is one of the biggest scams. But, man, it works because it gets right to the heart of young Millennials. And all they need, all Millennials need is the belief that an entity, a company, an individual, is trying and is committed to saving the planet. Whether it works or not doesn’t matter a hill of beans, because remember, nothing is authentic anymore. And there is no authority that’s respected, so all that matters is the image that you can create for yourself. And the marketing in which you can engage that tells your story, which is your commitment to saving the planet.

Like all of liberalism, you don’t have to do anything. You don’t have to make one ounce of progress to actually saving anything. You just have to convince people that you’re trying, and they love you, and they think you are perfect. And then somebody like me comes along and tries to tell the truth about it, and I am demonized and ripped to shreds at having no soul and having no heart, having no compassion, and having no concern. And all I am is trying to ensure that people do not fall for scam after scam after scam and lie after lie after lie because the more people that fall for these things, the bigger the government’s gonna get.

The more people fall for this, the more freedom you’re gonna sacrifice to government under the premise that your freedom is what’s caused the problem. Your freedom to buy the car you want to buy. Your freedom to set your thermostat where you want to set it. Your freedom to eat whatever you want to eat, all of these freedoms have led to this crisis. And you must be dialed back. And if you dial back on your own, we will reward you and provide for you redemption from the sins you have committed against the planet.

And people suck that up and buy into that faster than you can say, “You’re being scammed.” And that’s what all this is, $15 trillion. And Gore’s group even has a name: the Energy Transitions Commission. “The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims ‘additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge’ … ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.”

 

Teach your family critical thinking about scientific method vs. evolutionary theory

 

George Soros, financier of riots and BLM

The Washington Post Writes in Praise of Paid Protesters

Ed Klein: Soros, Liberal Billionaires Behind ‘Sometimes Violent’

Billionaire Democratic fundraisers are pouring “tons of money” into groups organizing “sometimes violent” protests around the country against President Donald Trump, according to \writer Ed Klein.

In an interview aired Sunday with radio host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable,” Klein charged the protest funding from “left-wingers” includes payment to “outside agitators.”

 

How to discern truth in news

 

Truth Matters:

Truth about Clinton Uranium Deal: Clintons handed over control of U.S. Uranium to Russia

Art Moore

Whistleblower Magazine, April 2017 (WB)

Russia’s acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where Canadian mining financier Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal. Bill Clinton, strategically, was at his side, the New York Times noted.

Giustra had wanted a large uranium concession in Kazakhstan but ha never been able to get it from the country’s repressive dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

“Bill Clinton shows up, declares at a press conference that Nazarbayev is a wondervul leader, should actually lead an international human rights organization,” says Peter Schweizer, [author of Clinton Cash]. “And lo and behold, a couple of days later, Nazarbayev gives Frank Giustra this uranium concession. A few weeks after that, Bill Clinton’s Clinton Foundation gets more than $30 million from Frank Giustra.” WB,24

While the U.S. gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only about 20 percent of the  uranium it needs, according to Marin Katusa, author of The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.

Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern about the Uranium One deal. Two more began pushing legislation to kill i, including Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wy., who wrote to President Obama, saying it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

The Times observed: “Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the Cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton—whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.”

Two months later, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States began its review.

[T]he deal was approved in October after, the Times said, citing two people involved, “a relatively smooth process.” WB, 25

 

Teach your Family the Truth not found in Public Schools.

Government Censorship vs. Internet Freedom

Ajit Pai Calls Out the Left on Their Plan to Control the Internet

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Ajit Pai is the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He is a wonderful man, very, very smart, and is prepared now to roll back elements of Title II of the communication law, which is popularly known as net neutrality. Net neutrality is a total creation of left-wing politics, and it has many lies, many fraudulent notions about it, such as the internet will only be free and open when government is regulating it.

PAI: Throughout the discussion that is to come, you will hear from the other side that Title II is the only way to preserve a free and open internet. Let me be clear. This is a lie. For decades before 2015, we had a free and open internet. Indeed, the free and open internet developed and flourished under light-touch regulation. We weren’t living in some digital dystopia before the partisan imposition of a massive plan hatched in Washington saved all of us from ourselves. The next argument you are going to hear is that Title II is necessary to protect free speech. That’s right. Some will argue that government control is the key to your ability to express yourself on the internet.

PAI: Consider, for example, the leading special interest in favor of Title II. A spectacularly misnamed Beltway special interest called “Free Press.” It’s cofounder and current board member makes no effort to hides true agenda. While he says that we’re not at the point yet where we can completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies, he admits that — and I quote — “The ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.” And who would assume control of the internet? Well, the government, of course. The overall goal, as he put it, “was to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”

 

Push back against Fascist stifling of Free Press and Speech

Science Facts: Most Global Warming is Junk Science, no Scientific Method used

Science Facts:

Most Global Warming is Junk Science, no Scientific Method used

Study: <1% Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Allum Bokhari

 

When I was in college 40 years ago, all science was conducted using the scientific method. It was a matter of integrity. Now everything is based on political opinion. Most so-called scientists don’t even know what the scientific method is. ~C.D

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong.

Professor Armstrong, who co-founded the peer-reviewed Journal of Forecasting in 1982 and the International Journal of Forecasting in 1985, made the claim in a presentation about what he considers to be “alarmism” from forecasters over man-made climate change.

“We also go through journals and rate how well they conform to the scientific method. I used to think that maybe 10 percent of papers in my field … were maybe useful. Now it looks like maybe, one tenth of one percent follow the scientific method” said Armstrong in his presentation, which can be watched in full below. “People just don’t do it.”

Armstrong defined eight criteria for compliance with the scientific method, including full disclosure of methods, data, and other reliable information, conclusions that are consistent with the evidence, valid and simple methods, and valid and reliable data.

8 Criteria for Scientific Method (Empiricism)

Digging deeper into their motivations, Armstrong pointed to the wealth of incentives for publishing papers with politically convenient rather than scientific conclusions.

“They’re rewarded for doing non-scientific research. One of my favourite examples is testing statistical significance – that’s invalid. It’s been over 100 years we’ve been fighting the fight against that. Even its inventor thought it wasn’t going to amount to anything. You can be rewarded then, for following an invalid [method].”

They Cheat

“They cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want.”

“My big thing is advocacy. People are asked to come up with certain answers, and in our whole field that’s been a general movement ever since I’ve been here, and it just gets worse every year. And the reason is funded research.”

“I’ve [gone through] my whole career, with lots of publications, and I’ve never gotten a research grant. And I’m proud of that now.”

Armstrong concluded his talk by arguing that scientific evidence should be required for all climate regulations.

Why?

According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria. “For example, for disclosure, we were working on polar bear [population] forecasts, and we were asked to review the government’s polar bear forecast. We asked, ‘could you send us the data’ and they said ‘No’… So we had to do it without knowing what the data were.”

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.’”

Science Facts, Science Fiction, Darwin Evolution, and Academic Freedom

Science Facts, Science Fiction, Darwin Evolution, and Academic Freedom

Unexpected Results From A Poll About Teaching Science

Their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and . . .the people . . .could not understand them. ~Omni 1:17

Dr. Carolyn Reeves

http://www.undergroundparadigm.com

A 2016 national poll of a cross-section of American adults revealed unexpected results. The participants included representative numbers of men, women, Democrats, Republicans, Theists, Atheists, Agnostics, and four age groups from 18-60+. According to the poll, 94% believe students, teachers, and scientists should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. Another finding in the poll was that 94% think “It is important for policymakers and the public to hear from scientists with differing views.”

 

False news has been a reoccurring topic in today’s culture for some time. A near relative to false news is ignored news. News worthy stories can be selectively ignored by the media or they can be twisted until the meaning is altered. There are two areas that are reported in these two categories more than their share of the time. These are Darwinian evolution and climate change.

There is a general assumption among the media that Darwinian evolution and climate change are now established facts and should be taught in classes as the only accurate scientific explanations for origins and climate. The fact is, there have been a number of news -worthy stories about these topics that have been ignored or given an altering twist.

Stories that oppose traditional positions about evolution and climate change are routinely passed over as religiously based, illegal in public schools, material that is flawed and biased, or not worthy of mainstream reputable news. When they are given time in news media, the articles often contain misrepresented information. This article is being written to challenge the false news and ignored news that is prevalent in articles that do not agree with mainstream science.

What do the majority of ordinary citizens think about the right to discuss dissenting scientific views on such topics? Readers may find the answer surprising!

A 2016 national poll of a cross-section of American adults revealed unexpected results. The participants included representative numbers of men, women, Democrats, Republicans, Theists, Atheists, Agnostics, and four age groups from 18-60+. According to the poll, 94% believe students, teachers, and scientists should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. Another finding in the poll was that 94% think “It is important for policymakers and the public to hear from scientists with differing views.”

Most Americans do not realize there has been a long history of punishing and censoring scientists who criticize or express doubts about the official versions of evolution and climate change. Many scientists have been demoted, fired, or harassed for expressing such ideas, even though many of their ideas were based on well-researched scientific principles. This is not something of which most Americans approve. The poll found that 84% agreed with this statement: “ Attempts to censor or punish scientists for holding dissenting views on issues such as evolution or climate change are not appropriate in a free society. “

Two states have proposed and are debating academic freedom bills—SB 55 in South Dakota and HB 1485 in Texas. These bills will give teachers the academic freedom to teach both the strengths and weaknesses of controversial scientific standards that are already in the approved curricula. Texas is in the middle of streamlining their science standards, which already contains some provisions for considering scientific strengths and weaknesses of scientific topics. If parent in these states are representative of this poll, their legislators should already know that this is a bill that parents will approve. Parents in other states that do not already have similar bills might want to consider talking to their legislators about introducing academic freedom bills in their states.

When scientists disagree about some issue or idea and are free to openly debate the weaknesses and strengths of the issue, real science is being done. When only one side of an issue is allowed to be taught and discussed, especially in schools, this is no more than indoctrination.

It will be interesting to see how media cover a new movie documentary entitled “Is Genesis History?” The project was put together by Del Tackett,who interviewed thirteen PhD scientists with a variety of scientific specialties. It is chock full of scientific information taken from the research of these scientists.

The information may be ignored; it may be twisted. It’s always possible the information will be given a fair hearing by the scientific experts, but if past history is an indicator, this is not like to happen.

What if both sides of the Darwinian evolution controversy and both sides of the climate change controversy presented their evidence for their favored theory to a competent, well qualified group of scientists? What if it were set up like a jury trial with evidence from both sides of the issue discussed openly and fairly and with an unbiased judge to oversee the presentations?

Even more, I would like to see this kind of situation in science classrooms with students free to discuss the issues and the evidence. This is what South Dakota and Texas how to see also.

Teach your Young Adults about the Creation with this engaging and wholesome classic

 

 

Truth Matters: Science Facts vs. Fake News, Global Warming Hoax

Truth Matters:

Science Facts vs. Fake News, Global Warming Hoax

Another Huge Global Warming Data Scandal

Rush Limbaugh

global-warming-hoax1

RUSH: I need to tell you something that you’re not going to see in the Drive-By Media, and it’s huge. In setting this up, I want to remind you why I have spent so much time on the whole subject of climate change and global warming throughout the entirety of this program, 29 years.

A Front for Socialism

It is because that issue, climate change, contains every element of extreme liberalism and socialism that needs to be understood and opposed. Climate change, if they succeed in this, climate change is close to health care in terms of, if you get nationalized climate change, nationalized health care, then you are very close to totally controlling the way people live their lives.

You have succeeded in restricting people’s liberty and freedom in perhaps the greatest way you can. That’s why climate change or global warming, whatever you want to call it, is of such paramount importance to me, because it’s not just a single issue. It’s every wet dream the left has encapsulated in an issue. It has government control, it has tax increases, it has the expansion of government, it has decisions and mandates of what kind of car you can and can’t drive, what kind of food you can and can’t eat, what you can do with your own private property. It would go a long way to eliminating the concept of private property.

NOAA manipulated land readings

NOAA manipulated land readings

The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured, one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used ‘unverified’ data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures

I mean, it’s just horrible. And it turns out there’s yet another scandal of totally fake data that was purposely made up and lied about right before the Paris accords that was designed to sway duped nations into spending, wasting millions of dollars in implementing policies designed to stop runaway temperature increases when there have not been any. And the fake data came from the United States. It came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the people that give you your weather forecast.

Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant  John J Bates at his home in Arden North Carolina Picture Chris Bott

Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates at his home in Arden North Carolina Picture Chris Bott

It was exposed by a whistleblower in the organization who had seen enough, a scientist named Bates, a Dr. Bates, and he had had his fill of the lies and the distortions.

The Daily Mail on Sunday in the U.K. revealed a landmark paper exaggerated global warming. It was rushed through in time to influence the Paris Agreement. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.

RUSH: To the global warming hoax. I want to remind you that Donald Trump is ridiculed to this day for claiming… All my little buddies on their tech blogs and many places on the left still ridicule Trump for claiming that global warming is a hoax started by the ChiComs to make American businesses uncompetitive. Now, global warming is a hoax. It is a hoax perpetrated on an unsuspecting population of the world who have been blamed for doing great damage to our climate through no fault of their own.

Liberal Lies

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon

cartoon-global-warming-hoaxThe CO2 is pollution. The stuff that you exhale is pollution. Barbecue pits and driving around your SUVs emits the greenhouse gas. The earth is broiling! The earth isn’t gonna be habitable in another 35 years. But there is redemption, and that is if you let government take over and if you stop driving these behemoth cars and let government tell you what kind of car to drive.

Stop eating Big Macs, beef, and all this other stuff and agree to tax increases and globalization. Let the United Nations basically determine how nations can function; then you can redeem yourself. And for every Prius you see on the road — for the most part, not all, but for the most part — you see a dupe. You see somebody who actually thinks they’re saving the planet, doing good. Everybody wants their lives to have meaning — and if you can save the planet, man, can you feel proud of yourself! You feel like your life has meaning.

So you go out, you buy an electric car or you keep your thermostat at 79 or 80 in the summer, and at 65 in the winter — and you sweat your butt off and then you freeze — and you’re saving the planet and all that. It’s bohunk. We don’t have the power to stop climate change, which means we don’t have the power to affect it at all. We can’t stop it. Lord knows we’ve been trying. Anyway, the point of all this is that there’s enough clear evidence out there that it is a hoax, that data is faked, that data is forged. But the Drive-Bys will not believe ’cause it’s a leftist cause, folks.

The reason that I’m so devoted to explaining this issue over and over is because it contains practically every aspect of liberalism that is dangerous.

That’s why it is a seminal issue to the left. Everything they want is wrapped up in it. Every bit of power, every bit of control. You couple climate change and health care, and freedom as you have known it ceases to exist. It is that evil, and it is that dangerous. And I’m gratified most polling data today shows that we’re nowhere near a majority of Americans who accept it or believe it or even consider it to be crucial.

It doesn’t stop the media from portraying it is an issue that all the right people agree with, that all the smart people agree on. If you don’t see this, then you’re a denier, you’re a kook, you’re equivalent to people that didn’t admit the Holocaust and so forth. The first substantive indication we had that this stuff is all faked and phonied up was a hack of an email server at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. in which the whistleblower there was somebody within the climate change movement, the so-called scientific community.

By the way, there’s another reason that… It’s real simple how this is not science. All you have to hear them say, “A consensus of scientists agree.”

There is no consensus in science. Science is not a democratic thing. It doesn’t get a vote.

A consensus of scientists thinking the earth is flat, for example, it doesn’t make the earth flat. There is no vote. A consensus of scientists doesn’t mean anything. In this issue, it means that they found all the scientists who are being paid via the grant process to produce research that the sponsors want.

global-warming-hoax4-moneyAnd they get their consensus. Algore has become filthy rich off of this hoax. The emails at East Anglia indicated — emails from scientist to scientist back and forth, back and forth — indicated and illustrated how they were changing and faking data from the Medieval period. They have to show throughout history temperatures much lower than today in order to make people believe that there’s an unstoppable warming going on that can be tied to industrialization. You go back to the Medieval period when we didn’t have any industrialization at all.

There were no fossil fuels, for example, so the only thing putting CO2 in the atmosphere was cows via methane and humans exhaling. But aside from that, you know, ’til the railroads came along and the Industrial Age. Smokestacks, factories, and this kind of thing. So they want to try to tie this unstoppable, dangerous warming to the invention of the combustible-fuel engine and progress related to that, as a means of indicting capitalism.

global-warming-hoax5-leaders-dupedClimate change is basically an anti-capitalist, pro-communist enterprise.

 

Truth unreported

You haven’t seen it yet, and I doubt you will see it. I know you won’t see this in the New York Times, and therefore my little tech blogger buddies will never see it. You won’t see it at BuzzFeed, which means my tech blogger buddies will not see it. You will not see this in the Washington Post; you won’t see it on the ABC, CBS, NBC. It’s in the Sunday edition of the U.K. Daily Mail. Headline:Exposed: How World Leaders Were Duped into Investing Billions Over Manipulated Global Warming Data — The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming.

“It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change. America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules.” In other words, the culprit in the latest exposing of the hoax is NOAA! They run all the weather satellites supposedly collecting all the temperature data.

FAKE NEWS:

chickenlittle1“The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

“The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 … never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected.” In other words, up until this report came out, there hadn’t been any warming, and the climate change people were alarmed.

This report says the fact that there was no warming was a mistake, that there was no pause, that record heat breaking had continued to happen when everybody thought there was no warming taking place. And they said instead of the fact that no warming took place that in fact temperatures have been rising faster than anybody expected.

This report was “launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

TRUTH:

global-warming-hoax2-big-gov” The problem these people are all having is there hasn’t been any warming in the last 15 to 18 years. Actually (sigh), even to say that gives their existence some credence. (sigh) But it has to be done to illustrate this.

There hasn’t been any warming! Their climate models said that by now temperatures would be X degree warmer and sea levels would be X centimeters higher.

None of it’s happened, and so they have to come up with an excuse for it. They have to come up with a reason for the “pause” in the warming. “The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organization that is the world’s leading source of climate data,” which is NOAA, “rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

“A high-level whistleblower has told” the Daily Mail… This is an American scientist. His name is [Dr. John] Bates, he works at NOAA, and he’s fed up seeing what he’s seeing. He told the U.K. Daily Mail “that [NOAA] breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and [U.K. Prime Minster] David Cameron at the U.N. climate conference in Paris in 2015,” . . . .

which, by the way, Trump says we’re pulling out of and we’re not gonna live by, and thank goodness for that.

But the whistleblower, Dr. John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.”

chickenlittle2They made it up, just exactly what happened with the email chains and threads at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. The report that was submitted to scientists and world leaders before the Paris meeting was never subjected to rigorous internal evaluation, the kind that this whistleblower himself had devised. This is the old peer review. They had not run the new report by anybody to let them review it, to make sure that it was right. It was not evaluated. Somebody just wrote it up and submitted it.

“Dr. Bates’ vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden –” He objected at the time, “You can’t do this. You can’t do this. We’re lying, it isn’t right.” But his superiors at NOAA overrode his observations in what he says is “a blatant attempt to intensify the impact of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.”

Again, the Pausebuster paper is the paper presented to people like Obama and others before the Paris meeting is to say, “You know what, that pause that we think we’ve had for 15 years, it actually hasn’t been a pause. We have been setting heat records these last 15 years. We need to act even faster than we ever knew.” It was all lies. There was no truth to it.

science-fraud-money-not-truth“The whistleblower’s disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal. … In an exclusive interview, Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data.”

 This does not surprise me. I think this whole movement is fraudulent because I don’t think that they can accurately tell us what global temperatures were in the 1600s and 1700s, the 1800s, just not possible. The tree trunk data, tree ring data, ice core, it’s all made-up stuff to be beyond our ability to comprehend. They’re scientists, they wear the white coats, we, therefore, believe them.

Cooler Today

global-warming-hoax5-noaa-adjusted-readingsThe ‘adjusted’ sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys (pictured). But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is notoriously unreliable. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was no ‘pause’

The fact of the matter is it has been much warmer previous times on earth than it is today. That cuts against every theory they’ve got about industrialization and burning of fossil fuels creating CO2. But before you even get to that this whole thing is bogus to me because I don’t believe that we human beings are capable of doing what we are being accused of doing. Because if we were, we would be able to stop the process.

By the way, and I’m not convinced that the warming is bad, even if it is happening. And we know it is. The climate is never constant. You know, the big question for me, folks, is one about the vanity and the arrogance of all this. These people in the scientific community promoting this hoax have got everybody believing that the temperatures and the climate and everything as of this moment in the history of the earth is what’s normal, and any deviation from the present is a crisis.

 How do we know what is normal? You know, ice ages have lasted 10, 20, hundreds of years, and they ended. How did they end? What caused the ice to melt way back when before there was fossil fuel? Way before there was humanity living lives of progress, what ended ice ages? What brought about warming areas when we weren’t doing anything to cause it? The answer is, it’s way beyond our pay scale.

Hoax

global-warming-hoax3-swindleWe just simply don’t have the ability to do this. And the evidence is — to show you how inept they are, we supposedly have had a pause — this is how stupid they are, folks. Listen to me, look at me. We supposedly had a pause for 15 years. During those 15 years, why didn’t they say, “See? Our research is working. See? Our suggestions are working. Our reduction of CO2, our elimination of SUVs, our increased usage of the electric car, whatever, is working, we need to do more of this.”

Why did they greet the pause as a problem, instead of looking at it, “Wow, we can say we’re succeeding, we can say that we’re on the right track, we need to double down on the kind of restrictions we’ve already –

They’re so stupid politically they didn’t even realize an opportunity to claim success and credit. They saw a pause as panic city. I’m telling you, folks, this is the biggest bunch of fraud, one of the biggest hoaxes that has been perpetrated on a free people in I don’t know when.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/06/another-huge-global-warming-data-scandal/

 

Related Links

Science Facts, DNA, and Intelligent Design

Science Facts, DNA, and Intelligent Design

What is the Best Evidence for Intelligent Design? Interview with Brian Johnson.

by Sean Mcdowell

science-dna-intelligent-designLast year, when I was speaking at a church in South Dakota for a Heroic Truth Event, I met Brian Johnson. He invited me on his Podcast, and we had a great conversation about “hot” cultural issues today.

Brian is one of the founders of South Dakota Apologetics, an organization dedicated to spreading the Gospel and helping fellow Christians better understand why they believe what they believe. Brian and his buddies at SDA actually offer their speaking services for free, so check ‘em out!

Brian is especially passionate about the evidence for intelligent design. Given his interest and expertise, I recently caught up with him and asked him some pressing questions about the evidence for intelligent design. Enjoy!

SEAN MCDOWELL: Are there any recent scientific advances that are changing what we know about the inner workings of the human body?

BRIAN JOHNSON: I think that accolade needs to go to the discovery of the DNA double helix in 1953 by Crick and Watson. Once this was discovered it blew open the doors to a whole new world of biology. From that we have been able to begin to piece together an entirely new understanding of what it takes to make our bodies function. This has led to major advancements in medicine as well as many other disciplines. The discovery of DNA has also enabled us to build an incredibly strong case for Intelligent Design.

creationhandsSEAN MCDOWELL: What got you interested in DNA as evidence for design? And why do you think this is such an important area for Christians, and in particular students, to understand?

BRIAN JOHNSON: I’ve always been interested in science and it was the scientific evidences for God that really started to convince me of His existence. As I started to look into the biological evidences I was awestruck at how obvious it was to make a design inference based on the inner workings of the cell. The molecular machines that are working inside each of our bodies at this moment scream of a designer.

If more Christians understood the beautiful structure of how the different processes within our bodies function I know it would not only strengthen their faith but would give them a much greater sense of just how amazing God’s creation really is. And this is certainly true for students who are often not exposed to the evidence for ID since our schools only teach Darwinian evolution.

SEAN MCDOWELL: Can you give a few specific examples of things in DNA that point to design?

BRIAN JOHNSON: Sure!

The first argument for Intelligent Design is based on the information we find in the cell. The arrangements of the four nucleotides, ACTG, contain specified information and convey meaning for the production and arrangements of proteins. Stephen Meyer makes the case for this in his book Signature in the Cell.

The second is a process called DNA error correction (aka, DNA repair). This process is mind-boggling and is currently at work in your body as you read this. Your body is creating new DNA at this moment in a process known as DNA Replication. During this process the DNA double helix is split in two, kind of like a zipper on a coat. As you unzip your coat you then have two sides of that zipper. Now pretend that the ‘teeth’ of the zipper on one side of the coat are each represented by a nucleotide letter of either a, c, t, or g. During the replication process a brand new set of ‘teeth’ are joined to the existing set of ‘teeth’ much the same way as when you zip the coat up and the two set of ‘teeth’ are joined together to seal the coat. If during this process an incorrect nucleotide is put down an error correcting process catches the error, stops the process, plucks out the wrong nucleotide, inserts the correct nucleotide, and then allows the replication process to continue. Describing this process as mind-blowing is actually an understatement.

The third process is one that has just recently been discovered. It now appears that in addition to repair mechanisms DNA also contains proofreading processes as well that make sure the information that passes through it is as accurate as possible. This all happens where messenger RNA transcripts are translated into proteins. The complexity of these processes is simply inconceivable.

SEAN MCDOWELL: Isn’t Intelligent Design based on a “God of the gaps” fallacy?

BRIAN JOHNSON: The God of the gaps objection is a common one. But it is mistaken. Rather than arguing from gap in our knowledge (i.e., what we can’t explain), Intelligent Design reasons from what we do know about the world by considering all the evidence and making an “inference to the best explanation.” This is the exact same scientific method Darwin used in his theory of natural selection. If you want to disregard the method we just used to infer an Intelligent Designer as the cause for what we find in the genome, then you must also reject Darwin’s conclusion as well. The knife cuts both ways.

What is the Best Evidence for Intelligent Design? Interview with Brian Johnson.

 

Truth Zone: Science Facts, Donald Trump vs. Climate Change Hoax

Truth Zone:

Science Facts, Donald Trump vs. Climate Change Hoax

Trump: The Left Just Lost The War On Climate Change

James Delingpole

Donald Trump isn’t just skeptical about global warming. He is what the alarmists would call a full-on climate change “denier”.

Donald Trump Tweets:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air – not the same old climate change (global warming) bulls**t! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.

 

RushGlobalWarmingObamaNo world leader has ever been this outspoken on climate change. The only other one to have come close to this position was former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott – but he just didn’t have the support base to maintain it and was ousted in a coup staged by one of the climate alarmist establishment, Malcolm Turnbull.

But with a climate skeptic running the most powerful nation in the world, the $1.5 trillion per annum climate change industry is going to start to unravel big time.

A Trump presidency is likely to be good news for fossil fuels (and heavy industry that needs cheap energy to survive); and very bad news for renewables.

chickenlittle2To get an idea of the horrors to come for the greenies, look at how they reacted to the prospect of his new Environmental Protection Agency Dismantler-in-Chief Myron Ebell.

Ebell is an old friend of mine who works on climate and energy issues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The fact that he’s an old friend of mine probably tells you all you need to know about where he stands on global warming.

Here’s how Newsweek views him:

Ebell is sometimes described as climate denier-in-chief, and he revels in it, crowing in his biography that he’s been called one of the leading “misleaders” on climate change and “villain of the month” by one environmental group. David Goldston, a policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, says Ebell “doesn’t believe in climate change and wants to reverse the advances we’ve had in environmental protection and decimate—if not utterly destroy—the Environmental Protection Agency.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Ebell’s employer, “has done everything it can politically and through litigation to block any forward movement on climate and to try to harass anybody who is trying to get forward movement,” Goldston says.

Ebell is also the chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, more than two dozen nonprofit groups “that question global warming alarmism and oppose energy rationing policies,” according to the coalition’s website. Those positions line up nicely with Trump’s goals, which include “saving” the coal industry, reviving the Keystone XL oil pipeline and expanding offshore oil drilling.

Ebell has attacked nearly every aspect of Obama’s environmental policies and accomplishments. He has said that the president’s decision in September to sign the Paris climate accord—which commits nations to sharp reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change—was “clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority” because treaties need approval by two-thirds of the Senate. (The White House argued that it was an agreement, not a treaty.) In a speech in August at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump said he would cancel the agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. climate change programs.

chickenlittle1Yup, greenies. That climate change gravy train you’ve been riding these last four decades looks like it’s headed for a major, Atlas-Shrugged-style tunnel incident…

 

Trump: The Left Just Lost The War On Climate Change

Heritage Foundation Report: Science Facts Reveal Dangers in 3 Parent Baby Mitochondria Disease

Heritage Foundation Report:

Science Facts Reveal  Dangers in 3 Parent Baby Mitochondria Disease

A Baby With 3 Parents Has Been Born. These Are the Dangers You Should Know About.

Anna Higgins

baby-eugenicsThe first baby with three parents has been born this year, raising troubling questions about our culture’s dedication to human dignity.

The U.S. Constitution is predicated on the principle of the inherent worth and dignity of the human individual. Fundamental rights do not depend on any other fact than that each of us is a unique human being. Thus, any proposed legal action or scientific endeavor is subordinate to those rights.

Often, however, we find that proposed scientific “advances”—particularly in areas like genetic engineering—trample on the rights and dignity of the individual.

Genetic manipulation resulting in embryos that incorporate DNA from three adults has been in laboratory experimentation phases since the 1990s, but now the first birth of a baby with genetic material from three parents has been reported. Multiple methods of creating three-parent embryos exist (a detailed explanation can be found here).

In this case, New York City fertility specialist Dr. John Zhang used a method called “maternal spindle transfer” to create five such human embryos—one of which was transferred to a womb and resulted in live birth. While the baby is now a few months old, New Scientist didn’t break the news until September.

The overall goal, sometimes called “mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT),” is to replace genetically defective mitochondria—the organelles responsible for generating energy and metabolic function of the cell—in a woman’s egg with healthy mitochondria using a female donor egg.

abortion-embryoGenetically defective mitochondria can cause serious, even lethal, health problems. But MRT procedures actually transfer a nucleus, repository of the majority of the cell’s genetic material (which means they use human cloning technology), into the presence of genetically different mitochondria.

This is germline (heritable) genetic modification, which means that the modification affects not only the new manufactured individual but also will be passed on to future generations.

The risks potentially associated with this procedure are borne by the resulting child, not the parents.

eugenics3Zhang performed the transfer of the genetically manipulated embryo to a woman’s womb in Mexico because it is currently illegal in the United States. Rather than pause to debate the potential consequences of such manipulation, American scientists are pushing to make this procedure legal in the U.S., touting its “glorious potential.”

In 2015, Congress passed an amendment to the omnibus spending bill, sponsored by Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., which prohibits the Food and Drug Administration from entertaining any submission that proposes “research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include heritable genetic modification.”

Thus, Zhang, unable to get approval to proceed with genetic manufacture of embryos in the U.S. and unwilling to debate the consequences of these human experiments, fled the country to do his experiments.

Note, however, that the Aderholt amendment does not prohibit human gene editing on born individuals. Congressional prohibition of the practice highlights the importance of the dignity of the human person and gives us a chance to consider all the potential ramifications of forging ahead with practices that amount to irreversible genetic modifications of human beings without their consent.

The United Kingdom has approved creation of three-parent embryos, and a U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee recently recommended that the FDA approve three-parent techniques for in vitro fertilization.

anti-cloningThe caveats included with the recommendations do little to assuage concerns. The committee recommends that this genetic engineering be 1) used only for women with serious, life-threatening mitochondrial disease; 2) require long-term medical follow-up for children born with genetic material from three parents; and 3) that only male embryos be transferred to the mother’s uterus.

First of all, risks potentially associated with this procedure are borne by the resulting child, not the parents. Parents are looking to this procedure because they wish to have a biological child, but do not wish to pass on a genetic disease. This prompts the question: Is the wish for biologically-related offspring sufficient to justify germline genetically modified children?

Eugenics, again?

eugenics1-margaret-sangerConcern that these procedures will eventually give rise to full-blown eugenics practices is valid. Where do we draw the ethical line when we take the next step of using mitochondrial genetic engineering—or other genetic manipulation techniques—to create people with other “desirable” characteristics?

Second, the potential health risks for these genetically modified children and their offspring are unknown. If the past failure of embryonic research and experimentation in the areas of disease treatment or vaccine development is any indication, there are far-reaching health consequences to be considered.

The National Academy of Sciences committee tacitly admits to the potential for long-term harmful effects by recommending long-term follow-up and male embryo transfer only. Recently, the Charlotte Lozier Institute published a paper highlighting the problem of sex-selective abortion in the U.S. and abroad. The selection of male-only embryos for transfer only exacerbates that problem, as the female embryos will be either immediately destroyed or used in further embryo-destructive experimentation.

If these are aborted or genetically altered?

If these are aborted or genetically altered?

Each embryo is biologically a unique human individual. Despite the “glorious potential” of genetic manipulation of human embryos, we must never lose sight of the preeminent consideration of human dignity and ethical practice.

This is an issue of Human Rights

In the end, this is an issue of human rights—not of harmless scientific experimentation. Congress was right to hold the dignity of the person above the impulses of scientific experimentation, and robust public debate on the ethics of this practice and the potential alternatives to it should follow.

 

The Dangers of 3-Parent Babies

Gallery

Science Facts, Global Warming Hoax, and a Fable with a Moral

This gallery contains 6 photos.

Science Facts, Global Warming Hoax, and a Fable with a Moral Moral of the Story: The birds are eaten by the fox; the fable is interpreted as a warning not to believe everything one is told. He answered and said … Continue reading

Truth Zone: “Science” Facts, or Science Fiction?

Truth Zone: “Science” Facts, or Science Fiction?

keyoldO ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. ~Matthew 16:2,3

Mankind threatened by global cooling, not warming
Bob Unruh

RushGlobalWarmingObamaAs the Obama administration creates policy based on the premise that the planet is warming, more and more scientists are concluding the real danger is global cooling.
“There’s no question of will it occur … but exactly when,” said David Dilley, a former NOAA meteorologist and the current senior research scientist at Global Weather Oscillations.
Dilley’s conclusions in many ways echo those of former NASA scientist John L. Casey, who just last year recorded a warning on the issue.
“The U.S. under President Obama has been eager to control industry and industrial output (of carbon dioxide),” he said.

The goal has been to shut down carbon dioxide emissions.

“That has been the main theme for many of the world’s governments for three decades,” he said.

However, “manmade carbon dioxide has very little to do with climate change.”

Casey said the cycles of warming and cooling periods generated by the sun are responsible for the changes.

Right now, he said, there are a number of hints, including volcanic and earthquake activity.
hoaxglobalwarming“Temperature, like viscosity and density, and of course phone numbers, is not something that can be meaningfully averaged. ‘Global temperature’ does not exist.”

There is evidence, according to Marc Morano of Climate Depot, a leading expert on the topic, that the “global warming” movement was never about the science behind the issue; it was always about creating a global system of controlling energy production and consumption.

And WND reported Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has pointed out that for more than 100 years, “journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age.”

 

History Timeline: Media Doomsayers Flip-Flop

flip-flopchickenlittle1The London Daily Mail noted that over the last century, America’s major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times. Each prediction warned entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean “billions” would die.

1895

In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age.

1920s

In the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s.

1975

Then in 1975, a New York Times headline blared “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

1981

In 1981, it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

2015—Global Cooling

The term of choice later evolved to “climate change” to cover the changing predictions.

There is evidence, according to Marc Morano of Climate Depot, a leading expert on the topic, that the “global warming” movement was never about the science behind the issue; it was always about creating a global system of controlling energy production and consumption.

chickenlittle2Morano told WND that the facts don’t seem to matter to the activists.

“They have an agenda,” he said.

For example, he noted, EU Commissioner Connie Hedegaard once said, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said, ‘We were wrong; it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

Then there was ex-Democratic Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Morano, whose coming movie, “Climate Hustle,” will address the issue, said the global warming agenda isn’t about the science.
For example, he noted, EU Commissioner Connie Hedegaard once said, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said, ‘We were wrong; it was not about climate,’ would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

Then there was ex-Democratic Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
truth-vs-liesIn May, President Obama told U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates to be prepared for a shift in military strategy that would include a fight against global warming, because weather patterns figure into trends toward violence. And in early 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry called climate change “the greatest challenge of our generation,” more so than poverty, terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, said, “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.”

He’s a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling.

A year ago, WND reported scientists and others on a team assembled by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which focuses on free-market solutions to today’s problems, say the “scare” of global warming from the use of carbon fuels and other human activities “is over.”

It’s “past time” for the world to realize that and “stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat,” contended Kenneth Haapala, the executive vice president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project in Virginia.

Scandal

govwasteabounds.The holes in the theory have been documented. For example, London’s Independent newspaper declared at the turn of the millennium, “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” The report quoted David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, long considered an authoritative resource for global warming research, as saying snow would soon be “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain.

But the authoritative reputation of East Anglia was seriously downgraded in 2009 when leaked emails proved researchers there were engaged in a major scheme to manipulate and suppress evidence against global warming, misconduct London’s Telegraph newspaper called “the worst scientific scandal of our generation.”

Well-known scientist Art Robinson has spearheaded The Petition Project, which to date has gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

The scientists say, “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/mankind-threatened-by-global-cooling-not-warming/#OmJkZIosWQxPYtzW.99