Anti-science totalitarians want to silence Climate Security Commission

[cancel2 2022]

.
They are shitting themselves that this committee will expose the extremely shaky science that is at the heart of the Climate Industrial Complex.

Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. He should do it now. The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.

No way! the climate alarmists rant. How dare you question our disaster claims? Our settled science? No! How dare YOU use those claims to justify your agenda – and your continued efforts to bludgeon and silence us into submission – without letting anyone examine, much less debate, your supposed evidence?

For years, you have loudly and incessantly asserted that the United States and world must end fossil fuel use, or we are “doomed.” Now you’re demanding that the United States completely upend its energy production, transportation and manufacturing sectors, housing and office buildings, and entire economy. You want the federal government to control and limit our lives, choices and living standards – and redistribute our wealth, even to those “unwilling to work,” according to confiscatory socialist principles.

For years, you Democrats, environmentalists, Deep State bureaucrats, government-grant-dependent scientists, news and social media have colluded to censor and silence manmade climate chaos skeptics, and stifle any debate. All of you have huge financial, reputational and power stakes in this. Your Climate Industrial Complex is a $2-trillion-per-year global behemoth. Your Green New Deal would cost this nation up to $93 trillion by 2030 – sticking every US family with a $65,000 annual bill.

And still you insist that the science is settled, that there is no room for discussion, that we must act immediately to “save the planet” from climate and extreme weather disaster. Now you want to wrap up your kangaroo court proceedings – with our side given no opportunity to present our evidence, defend fossil fuels and carbon dioxide, examine your alleged evidence, or cross-examine your experts. If your evidence is so solid and unimpeachable, you should be more than happy to lay it on the table, subject it to scrutiny, question our experts, and let us question yours – extensively and mercilessly.

After all, the future of our planet is at stake – or so you claim. The future of our country certainly is. Your radical agenda and actions are un-American, totalitarian, anti-science, and contrary to our most fundamental principles of open, robust debate – on one of the most critical issues in US history. A large majority of Americans believe our planet has warmed and is warming. No one denies that. And thank goodness, or we’d still be stuck in the Little Ice Age. But that’s not the issue. The issues are: Is any likely future warming going to be disastrous? And are humans and fossil fuels to blame?

You claim the answer is Yes. Again, where is your proof? If you have any actual evidence, lay it on the table. Show us exactly where the natural forces that have driven countless climate changes throughout history end – and where the human factors begin. Quantify them. Don’t give us computer models that simply reflect the assumptions that went into them. Present solid, Real World evidence. If you have any. While you’re at it, you also need to prove that dismantling America’s energy and economic system will make one whit of difference in our climate and weather (assuming for the sake of argument that human carbon dioxide emissions now drive climate and weather) – when China, India and other countries are building thousands of coal and natural gas fueled power plants, and millions of cars and trucks.

Their emissions already dwarf ours. And they are not going to give up fossil fuels for decades, if ever. Prove your GND energy system can actually power America, without destroying jobs, living standards, manufacturing, health, prosperity and environment. As I have said over, over and over, it cannot be done. Your alternatives are not workable, affordable, green, renewable, ethical, ecological or sustainable.

Here’s just a few of the Real World climate science facts that alarmists don’t want exposed or discussed. Temperatures have risen by tenths or hundredths of a degree in recent years – less than the margin of error, and most of the “highest temperatures on record” have been in urban areas, where local man-made heat skews the data. We’re also experiencing record cold and snow in numerous locations.

The average prediction by 102 climate models is now a full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites are measuring. Michael Mann’s climate model could concoct hockey sticks from telephone numbers and other random numbers. Are we supposed to trust these models on critical energy policy?

Violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) averaged 56 per year from 1950 to 1985. But from 1986 to 2018 only 34 per year touched down in the USA on average – and for the first time ever not one did in 2018. The March 3 Alabama tornado was tragic, and the 2-mile-wide 2013 Oklahoma City monster lasted 40 minutes. But the 1925 Tri-State Twister was a mile wide, traveled a record 220 miles, lasted a record 3.5 hours, and killed a record 695 people.

Hurricanes becoming more frequent and intense? From 1920 through 1940, ten Category 3-5 hurricanes made US landfall; from 1960 through 1980, eleven; 1980 through 2000, ten; 2001 through 2018, nine. There is no trend. Moreover, Harvey and Irma in 2017 were the first category 3-5 hurricanes to make U.S. landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the Civil War era.

A warmer Arctic? The Washington Post did report that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” But that was in 1922!

Polar bear populations are the highest on record: between 24,500 and 28,500 or more of them!

Oceans cannot become “more acidic,” because they are not and have never been acidic. Earth’s oceans are slightly alkaline. That slight alkalinity has decreased slightly (from 8.2 on the pH scale to 8.1) over the past few decades. But they are not getting acidic … and won’t anytime soon.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. In fact, the more CO2 in the air, the faster and better crop, forest and grassland plants grow – and the better they can withstand droughts, diseases, and damage from insects and viruses.

In fact, a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be tremendously beneficial for plants, wildlife and humanity. A colder planet with less carbon dioxide would greatly reduce arable land extent, growing seasons, wildlife habitats, crop production and our ability to feed humanity.

Millions of Americans are exasperated with Republicans like Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois, who recently whined that it’s “just not worth the fight anymore” to battle climate alarmism – and protect our nation and our children’s future. Elected officials like him need to get spinal implants, learn the Climate Facts, or resign and turn their seats over to someone who will fight for us. That’s why we need the PCCS.

It’s why tens of millions hope the President Trump we elected to clean out the Deep State, get to the bottom of manmade climate chaos pseudo-science … and Make America Great Again for decades to come … will demonstrate his Real Leadership skills right now, when they are so sorely needed. We need to tell Mr. Trump: Please stand up to these Climate Totalitarians who want to destroy our nation, in the name of saving the planet from climate disasters that exist only in computer models, Hollywood movies, and self-serving assertions by the Climate Industrial Complex. Alarmists have controlled the climate narrative thus far. Now we need to give other experts a chance to weigh in, loud and clear.

Appoint your Presidential Committee on Climate Science now! Give sound, honest science a chance.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/03/08/ant...ty-commission/ to

[Celticguy]

Yeah let's see some proof instead of consensus.

[cancel2 2022]

Wow, both McSquawker and Nonads have started attack threads!! I wish William Happer and the other members of the committee the best of luck in finally damming the rivers of bullshit that emanate from climate alarmists.

[cancel2 2022]

He could well.of added that US emissions hardly make a dent either these days.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST NIC LEWIS: ‘EUROPEAN CO2 EMISSIONS DON’T MATTER’

Date: 09/03/19 Edwin Timmer, De Telegraaf
To tackle global climate change it is far more important that fast-growing developing countries do more than any well-intentioned steps in the Netherlands. “In fact, European emissions don’t matter,” says British climate scientist Nic Lewis.

“What really matters is: what happens in developing countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria”, says Lewis, who gave a presentation at De Groene Rekenkamer Foundation this week in Amsterdam. According to him, it is much more important that developing countries quickly become richer and how rising CO2 emissions that this entails can be limited.

“We have a lot of knowledge and expertise in Europe. We can spend our money better than investing billions in subsidies and other climate policies that have virtually no effect on global emissions.”

Lewis would prefer to see investments in the development of clean nuclear energy or techniques to get CO2 out of the air and shut down coal-fired plants. “That could then be rolled out over the rest of the world.”

The sense of urgency that politicians and environmental organizations are promoting is unnecessary, says Lewis. Like the UN’s climate panel, the scientist assumes that global warming since 1850 is largely due to human CO2 emissions. Yet he is more optimistic than the IPCC. Based on his own research [and that of others] he concludes that the climate is much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than models predict.

“If you look at the observations since 1850, the global temperature has been rising less quickly than expected.” While the IPCC models estimate around 3 degrees of warming as a result of the doubling of CO2, Lewis actually sees only an increase of around 1.7 degrees Celsius. Climate modellers are not happy with Lewis’ criticism. “They attach less importance to what the global temperature has actually been doing.”

Lewis has a reassuring message: “It suggests that we have more time to achieve the political goal of limiting warming to two degrees. Our emissions do not have to go to virtually zero by 2050.” That is the thinking in Brussels, The Hague and the UN climate agreement.

Politicians who continue to argue for haste suffer from a Messiah complex. “They care more about their own virtue at the expense of the population.” Realism about climate change will only return to the public debate once it is clear what the actual costs are, Lewis expects. “So far, governments have tried to hide those costs. But the population is not that crazy and the penny is starting to drop.”

https://www.thegwpf.com/climate-scie...s-dont-matter/

[cancel2 2022]

Just to redress the balance and counter the bullshit from Nonads, look at all the organisations that fund climate alarmism. This is a huge industry in itself and they don't take kindly to anyone that presents a sceptical view.

https://www.masterresource.org/clima...climate-money/

[cancel2 2022]

There are several billionaires and a multiplicity of organisations behind climate alarmism funding who, for the most part, prefer to stay in the shadows for obvious reasons.

Two environmental activist groups – Greenpeace and The Nature Conservancy – raise more than $1 billion cumulatively per year. These two groups raise more money than the combined funding of the 91 conservative think tanks identified in Brulle’s paper. Just as importantly, these two groups raise money solely for environmental causes and frequently advocate for global warming restrictions. Their $1 billion is not diluted addressing issues such as economic policy, health care policy, foreign policy, etc.

Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions. When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lion’s share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth.

Interestingly, Brulle and his media allies place special emphasis on the so-called dark money given to conservative think tanks by foundations with anonymous donors. Only $64 million of the conservative think tanks’ $900 million in total donations come from foundations. At most, only $6.4 million of the “dark money” addresses global warming topics, with a net of only $3.2 million opposing global warming activism. Nevertheless, the assertion is dark money is nefarious money and has a special impact on the debate. As Cenk Uyger claimed in his video post:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...nier-research/

[moon]

.
They are shitting themselves that this committee will expose the extremely shaky science that is at the heart of the Climate Industrial Complex.

You deniers just don't get it, do you maggot.

Think of the existential effects of climate collapse like playing Russian roulette . You can simply ignore it- and continue to pull the trigger- or you can unload the fucking gun.

Unfortunately, you want to play it in the same room as sane people.

[cancel2 2022]

You do have to laugh when climate alarmists bang on about Exxon et al, but completely ignore shadowy figures like billionaires like George Soros and Tom Steyer.

A former Obama administration official with ties to a liberal advocacy group funded by Democratic megadonors George Soros and Tom Steyer helped prepare the Fourth National Climate Assessment, whose dire predictions have since been attacked as overblown.

Andrew Light, who worked on the 2015 Paris accord negotiations as a senior adviser to the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change under Secretary of State John F. Kerry, served as a review editor for the assessment, overseeing the pivotal final chapter that concluded under a worst-case scenario that global warming could wipe out as much as 10 percent of the U.S. economy by 2100.

Now a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute, Mr. Light also spent five years as senior fellow and director of international climate policy at the Center for American Progress, which was founded and now led by longtime Democratic insider John Podesta. The center is also financed by liberal billionaires such as Mr. Soros and Mr. Steyer.

The involvement of Mr. Light and other figures known for their climate change advocacy has raised questions about the credibility of the report, which has been widely depicted as a politically neutral, scientific document prepared by disinterested specialists from 13 federal agencies.

Roger A. Pielke Jr., University of Colorado Boulder environmental studies professor, criticized the decision to bring in Mr. Light, as well as the report’s reliance for the 10 percent figure on a 2017 study funded in part by Mr. Steyer’s Next Generation and Bloomberg Philanthropies.

“The question remains, whose idea was it to have John Podesta’s climate adviser and Obama political appointee be in charge of the review of the most important chapter, which leans heavily on Tom Steyer research?” Mr. Pielke said in an email. Mr. Light directed questions about his role to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is required by Congress to prepare a new assessment no less than every four years. The program did not immediately return messages requesting comment.

“I was appointed in my capacity as a professor at George Mason University, where I have worked since 2008,” Mr. Light said in an email. “Any questions about decisions on who was or was not appointed to one of the chapter author teams should be directed to the U.S. Office of Global Change Research, because that is the office that put together those teams.” Mr. Light has no formal academic scientific credentials — he earned his Ph.D. in philosophy — but noted that he completed a three-year postdoctoral research fellowship in environmental risk assessment.

“I believe I was selected as a Review Editor because for over fifteen years I have been working on domestic and international environmental, climate, and energy policy,” he said. “I have authored or co-authored over a dozen policy reports in this area, participated and led several important dialogues and projects in this field, and made substantial contributions to climate and energy agreements.” Mr. Light denied being in charge of the chapter, saying it would be “inaccurate to say that I was responsible for any of the content.”

He made the media rounds after the report was released, with both CBS News and Bloomberg News calling him the report’s “co-author,” which he said was incorrect. The report lists more than 200 authors and contributors, most of them federal employees but also dozens from universities, advocacy groups, foundations, think tanks and consulting firms specializing in advising governments and businesses on climate change adaptation and resilience.

The advocacy groups include the Union of Concerned Scientists, National Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and Arctic Institute. Others involved with the report are affiliated with the Brookings Institution, the Paulson Institute, and the Rand Corp., as well as the Kresge and Packard foundations. Absent were prominent scientists affiliated with top research universities who have challenged catastrophic climate scenarios, such as John Christy, Judith Curry, William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roy Spencer.

Mr. Light said review editors were selected by the National Climate Assessment federal steering committee from candidates nominated by others or themselves. “Anyone could be nominated for the role of Review Editor or they could self-nominate,” he said.

The report landed President Trump in the hot seat, in part for its ominous findings, in part because it was released on Black Friday, fueling accusations that the administration wanted to bury the damning assessment. Environmental groups reacted with calls for swift action to avoid the scenarios laid out in the report, including as many as 9,300 climate-related deaths per year by 2100 and an increase in extreme weather events.

“This assessment, put forth by Donald Trump’s own government, continues to make it clear that if we don’t act now, the catastrophic effects of climate change will reshape the United States and the world for those of us alive today and for generations to come,” the Sierra Club said in a statement. Mr. Trump dismissed the assessment, saying, “I don’t believe it,” prompting CNN to scold him for “dismissing his own experts.”

Skeptics, meanwhile, have blasted the report as “tripe” (Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore), a “400-page pile of crap” (Heartland Institute’s John Dunn), “irrelevant” (JunkScience’s Steven J. Milloy), and “baseless scaremongering” (Watts Up With That’s Eric Worrall). “The National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because it is,” said Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”

He described two of the authors — Texas Tech professor Katharine Hayhoe and Donald J. Wuebbles of the University of Illinois — as “longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists.”

“These are not ‘Trump’s own scientists’ as the media likes to claim,” Mr. Morano said. “The key authors are in fact left-wing environmental activists with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for American Progress, and the Obama Administration. And they cited outlier studies funded by Steyer and [Michael] Bloomberg.” The 2017 study, which appeared in the journal Science, was cited to support the claim of a possible 10 percent decline in U.S. gross domestic product by the end of the century, a scenario decried by critics as highly improbable.

The report concluded that reducing climate change under a more extreme scenario versus a lesser one would mean fewer deaths and fewer lost labor hours. The avoided health impacts would represent “domestic benefits of mitigation on the order of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars per year.”

“These figures, as clearly identified in the references in the report, were not derived from one study but from a number of sources, primarily an EPA study from 2017,” he said. Mr. Pielke, who has described climate change as “real” and Mr. Trump as “wrong” on the issue, said the estimate was not only “implausible,” but also was contradicted elsewhere in the assessment.

“The report obviously fell short in its quality control,” Mr. Pielke said. “Why this happened should be explored, but clearly it would have benefited from expanding its leadership beyond the ‘climate club.’”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...epare-dire-na/

[Centerleftfl]

THIS Climate SCIENCE Commission from Trump? Or is there another one? Another PANEL? Fucking idiots--the whole GD lot of you...


As stated by a White House memo dated February 14, President Trump’s staff members have drafted an executive order to create a climate panel named the Presidential Committee on Climate Security. Its goal is to provide a review of climate science and to examine whether climate change impacts US national security. The twelve members of this panel will include White House advisor and climate change denier William Happer. The panel, headed by Happer, is set to meet tomorrow in the Situation Room of the White House.

William Happer, a retired Princeton physicist, is said to have bizarre and backward views about climate science, having argued on CNBC in 2014 that “the the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler”. Happer, who is not a climate scientist, has also been said to have sent an email to a Jezebel reader contesting that the “demonization of CO2” “really differs little from the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the Soviet extermination of class enemies or ISIL slaughter of infidels.”

[cancel2 2022]

THIS Climate SCIENCE Commission from Trump? Or is there another one? Another PANEL? Fucking idiots--the whole GD lot of you...


As stated by a White House memo dated February 14, President Trump’s staff members have drafted an executive order to create a climate panel named the Presidential Committee on Climate Security. Its goal is to provide a review of climate science and to examine whether climate change impacts US national security. The twelve members of this panel will include White House advisor and climate change denier William Happer. The panel, headed by Happer, is set to meet tomorrow in the Situation Room of the White House.

William Happer, a retired Princeton physicist, is said to have bizarre and backward views about climate science, having argued on CNBC in 2014 that “the the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler”. Happer, who is not a climate scientist, has also been said to have sent an email to a Jezebel reader contesting that the “demonization of CO2” “really differs little from the Nazi persecution of the Jews, the Soviet extermination of class enemies or ISIL slaughter of infidels.”

I have absolutely no interest in what you think, William Happer is a true colossus in the world of experimental physics and to presume that he doesn't understand climate science is just total bullshit. He has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. I wonder if even know what spectroscopy is, because if you did then you wouldn't post such specious bullshit from the likes of Vox and Jezebel ffs!!

He will also invite a plethora of climate scientists to give testimony, both warmists and sceptics. This is something that should have happened long ago and is well overdue. Calling skeptics deniers is incredibly offensive to victims of the Holocaust, it is also completely ignorant of how science advances. Maybe I will refer to alarmists as climate cuntists in future?

[Centerleftfl]

You deniers just don't get it, do you maggot.

Think of the existential effects of climate collapse like playing Russian roulette . You can simply ignore it- and continue to pull the trigger- or you can unload the fucking gun.

Unfortunately, you want to play it in the same room as sane people.

If these fucking fools think ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is bad NOW, give it 10 years when CROP FAILURE in S. America really starts starving them to death! They'll be fine with it no doubt, but we will have to SHOOT THEM climbing over the fences or walls! What happens when you can't grow CORN?

[cancel2 2022]

If these fucking fools think ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is bad NOW, give it 10 years when CROP FAILURE in S. America really starts starving them to death! They'll be fine with it no doubt, but we will have to SHOOT THEM climbing over the fences or walls! What happens when you can't grow CORN?

Hysterical bullshit!!

[Truth Detector]

They are shitting themselves that this committee will expose the extremely shaky science that is at the heart of the Climate Industrial Complex.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/03/08/ant...ty-commission/ to

I am all for a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.

[moon]

Hysterical bullshit!!

Stay anonymous, maggot.

[Truth Detector]

Just to redress the balance and counter the bullshit from Nonads, look at all the organisations that fund climate alarmism. This is a huge industry in itself and they don't take kindly to anyone that presents a sceptical view.

https://www.masterresource.org/clima...climate-money/

Climate hysterics is a BIG business. The Party of the Jackass loves it because it gives politicians more power over the sheeple as well.