Global warming: ‘Fake news’ from the day it went before the U.S. Senate

Senator Tim Wirth, scientist James Hansen and others manufactured the climate “crisis”

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change because it is a bad deal for America.

He could have made the decision simply because the science is false. However, most of the American and global public have been brainwashed into believing the science is correct (and supported by the faux 97% consensus), so they would not have believed that explanation.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and indeed the leaders of many western democracies, support the Agreement and are completely unaware of the gross deficiencies in the science. If they understood those deficiencies, they wouldn’t be forcing a carbon dioxide (CO2) tax on their citizens.

Trudeau and other leaders show how little they know, and how little they assume the public knows, by calling it a “carbon tax” on “carbon emissions.” But CO2 is a gas, the trace atmospheric gas that makes life on Earth possible. Carbon is a solid, and carbon-based fuels are solid (coal), liquid (oil) or gaseous (natural gas).

By constantly railing about “carbon emissions,” Trudeau, Obama and others encourage people to think of carbon dioxide as something “dirty,” like soot, which really is carbon. Calling CO2 by its proper name would help the public remember that it is actually an invisible, odorless gas essential to plant photosynthesis.

Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is arguably the most misinformed of the lot, saying in a recent interview that “polluters should pay.” She too either does not know that CO2 is not a pollutant, or she is deliberately misleading people.

Like many of her political peers, McKenna dismisses credentialed PhD scientists who disagree with her approach, labeling them “deniers.” She does not seem to understand that questioning scientific hypotheses, even scientific theories, is what all scientists should do, if true science is to advance.

That is why the Royal Society’s official motto is “Nullius in verba,” Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it.” Ironically, the Society rarely practices this approach when it comes to climate change.

Mistakes such as those made by McKenna are not surprising, considering that from the outset the entire claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was built on falsehoods and spread with fake news.

The plot to deceive the world about human-caused global warming gathered momentum right after the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) created the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

After spending five days at the U.N. with Maurice Strong, the first executive director of UNEP, Hamilton Spectator investigative reporter Elaine Dewar concluded that the overarching objective of the IPCC was political, not scientific. “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the global governance agenda,” she wrote.

The political agenda required “credibility” to accomplish the deception. It also required some fake news for momentum. Ideally, this would involve testimony from a scientist before a legislative committee.

U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) was fully committed to the political agenda and the deception. As he explained in a 1993 comment,

“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 1988 Wirth was in a position to jump-start the climate alarm. He worked with colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to organize and orchestrate a June 23, 1988 hearing where the lead witness would be Dr. James Hansen, then the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Wirth explained in a 2007 interview with PBS Frontline:

“We knew there was this scientist at NASA, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So, we called him up and asked him if he would testify.”

Hansen did not disappoint. The New York Times reported on June 23, 1988:

“Today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation, but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.”

Specifically, Hansen told the committee, “Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming…. It is already happening now.”

Hansen also testified: “The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now…. We have already reached the point where the greenhouse effect is important.”

Wirth, who presided at the hearing, was pre-disposed to believe Hansen and told the committee. “As I read it, the scientific evidence is compelling: the global climate is changing as the earth’s atmosphere gets warmer,” Wirth said. “Now the Congress must begin to consider how we are going to slow or halt that warming trend, and how we are going to cope with the changes that may already be inevitable.”

Hansens’s June 1988 testimony – the birth of the global warming issue. Wirth is on the right.

Later, it was learned, that Wirth and Hansen resorted to some “stagecraft” in order to make their argument so convincing. From the  2007 interview with PBS Frontline:

And did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer.

What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …

If Hansen’s science was so strong, so compelling, so “certain about it”, why did he and Wirth need to resort to cheap sweaty tactics to convince the Senate panel?

More than any other event, that single hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee publicly initiated the climate scare, the biggest deception in history. It created an unholy alliance between a bureaucrat and a politician, which was bolstered by the U.N. and the popular press – leading to the hoax being accepted in governments, industry boardrooms, schools and churches all across the world.

Dr. John S. Theon, Hansen’s former supervisor at NASA, wrote to the Senate Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.

“Hansen was never muzzled, even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Hansen never abandoned his single-minded, unsubstantiated claim that CO2 from human activities caused dangerous global warming. He defied Hatch Act limits on bureaucratic political actions, and in 2011 even got arrested at a White House protest against the Keystone XL pipeline. It was at least his third such arrest to that point.

Like Trudeau and other leaders duped by the climate scare, Senator Wirth either had not read or did not understand the science. In fact, an increasing number of climate scientists (including Dr. Ball) now conclude that there is no empirical evidence of human-caused global warming. There are only computer model speculations that humans are causing it, and every forecast made using these models since 1990 has been wrong – with actual temperatures getting further from predictions with every passing year.

President Trump must now end America’s participation in the fake science and fake news of manmade global warming. To do this, he must withdraw the U.S. from further involvement with all U.N. global warming programs, especially the IPCC, as well as the agency that now directs it – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He should also launch a “Red Team” exercise that lets non-alarmist scientists examine climate cataclysm claims and the purported evidence for them.

Only then will the U.S. have a chance to fully develop its hydrocarbon resources to achieve the president’s goal of global energy dominance and long-term prosperity for America and the world.

Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 20, 2017 8:43 am

..and they have been resorting to dirty tricks ever since

Reply to  Latitude
December 24, 2017 12:11 pm
Post on the same subject. Content mostly in Greek, mechanical translation will help.

Andre Lauzon
December 20, 2017 8:53 am

Trudeau wants the carbon tax because he needs the money to cover all his other selfish stupidities……….. like buying gratitude from the UN. And Butt is right there at the trough.

Reply to  Andre Lauzon
December 20, 2017 9:07 am

….he might better push for all the taxes he can get

Trump’s tax tsunami is about to wallop Canadian jobs and investment

Reply to  Andre Lauzon
December 20, 2017 10:01 am

Using expressions like “fake news” weakens the otherwise legitimate questioning of the global warming conjecture because it aligns you with Donald Trump who doesn’t seem to be capable of differentiating truth from falsehood.

Reply to  Trebla
December 20, 2017 10:07 am

…well, he got the fake news part spot on

Reply to  Trebla
December 20, 2017 10:36 am

Not hard to differentiate fact from fiction when it comes to “climate change™”

“Climate change™” is basically ALL fiction/FAKE.

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  Trebla
December 20, 2017 11:07 am

Ok, Trebla. While I am certainly not a fan of President Trump on a personal basis (don’t like that New York culture), I utterly despise statements like this. Is Trump a narcissist? Yes, it is pretty obvious. Does he have an agenda? Yes, that also is pretty obvious.

Incapable of differentiating truth from falsehood? Oh puke. Let me guess, he built a multibillion dollar company because he believes any old lie? Who is lying to him? What lies are we talking about?

Hate to break it to you but the liberal left in America has a case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. This causes them to froth at the mouth at the very mention of Trump. And, quite frankly, it causes them to believe just about anything about him, as long as it is negative.

Just remember, Trump did not use the Fake News meme first. It was a frothing liberal who did it.

Reply to  Trebla
December 20, 2017 4:55 pm

IOW, you voted for Hillary.
comment image?w=600&h=330

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Trebla
December 21, 2017 5:14 am

Um, no. Trump is right. Whether he chose the best terminology is debatable but irrelevant.

Reply to  Trebla
December 22, 2017 5:56 pm

and Trump is so stupid he’s flat broke, right? You, McWhinebag , need to take off and spew your BS on a liberal page.

December 20, 2017 8:54 am

I’ve noticed that many, if not most, of the AGW adherents absolutely refuse to read science papers that prove their position is wrong.

Reply to  John
December 20, 2017 8:58 am

And I have met a few who will read those papers and get exactly the wrong message.

Joel Snider
Reply to  ClimateOtter
December 20, 2017 12:21 pm

‘And I have met a few who will read those papers and get exactly the wrong message.’

That’s the personality type that has to exist before one can be a warmist – at least with any sort of real knowledge – it’s the control freak that sees a microscopic effect as something that must be micro-managed.

It’s literally what’s wrong with everything they do across the entire socio/political spectrum – an ideology that is absolutely incompatible with liberty.

Reply to  John
December 20, 2017 9:06 am

Isn’t that the truth. I just happened to be in my local bookstore and they didn’t have one book that took the opposing approach to the GW mantra. The were full of tomes on the propagandist viewpoint though. Most people would see that sort of thing and never consider that there was any dissension in the scientific community. Thus the brainwashing is accomplished little by little.

Reply to  John
December 20, 2017 9:40 am

Then there are those like me who don’t care what the science says, we can’t stand the leftist politics that gets trotted around as if it is the only answer.

Reply to  John
December 20, 2017 10:53 am

I’ve noticed that many in the AGW camp don’t read any scientific papers AT ALL!
I suspect that most of the reading they accomplish in a day is on facebook.

Reply to  John
December 20, 2017 11:47 am

Just by ignoring truth and reality does that somehow make the opposing viewpoint into truth and reality? I think not. There is a reality and there is just one version of reality. Reality is what it is. Each truth is what it is. Each truth is part of the whole truth. The sum of all truths is equal to the one reality. And you can take your half-assed, fantasyland opinions and shove them where the sun doesn’t have a chance to be the controller of the climate because it doesn’t shine there.

Reply to  thomasjk
December 20, 2017 12:53 pm

Unfortunately, about half the population, the Left-leaning half, is seriously deluded about what is real and what is not real.

tony mcleod
Reply to  John
December 20, 2017 5:23 pm

John December 20, 2017 at 8:54 am
I’ve noticed that many, if not most, of the AGW adherents absolutely refuse to read science papers that prove their position is wrong.

Could you provide a link to the “proof”? I don’t “adhere” to anything so I’d like to read it.

December 20, 2017 8:59 am

We need to get them all in here on this one: griff, seb, sod, len, nick, toni…. tony?

Tom Halla
December 20, 2017 9:00 am

What should be considered though, is the comment attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, that one should not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
Al Gore and Tim Worth may have been sincere. Wrong, and pushing a destructive cause, and disinclined to test any proposition that serves their purpose, but sincere. Which is why relying on challenging the unknowable motives of a person is such a treacherous tactic.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 20, 2017 9:43 am

They have had plenty of time to reverse their position and have not done so, even with the mounting evidence against it.

Tom Halla
Reply to  A C Osborn
December 20, 2017 9:55 am

If one only reads affirmations of your position, incredible BS will persist indefinitely. If someone is determined to believe in the efficacy of homeopathy, for instance, finding support tor that is fairly easy.
ManBearPig failed out of a theology major, and failing a Senator’s son is about as common as placing a star football player on academic suspension. I know a lot less about Senator Wirth, but glib indomitable ignorance is perverse advantage in politics.

tony mcleod
Reply to  A C Osborn
December 20, 2017 5:29 pm
Roger Knights
Reply to  A C Osborn
December 21, 2017 4:43 am

Tony: A la Niña is coming.

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 20, 2017 10:22 am

Well, as Heinlein said: “Better a con man than an honest fanatic. A con man knows he’s lying. It limits his scope.”

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 20, 2017 2:18 pm


“Al Gore and Tim Worth may have been sincere. Wrong, and pushing a destructive cause, and disinclined to test any proposition that serves their purpose, but sincere.”

Sincere about what, is the critical question, it seems to me . .

“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.…” (Tim Worth)

It does not appear to me to be “global warming” itself . . but something else . .

I suggest it was something that can be seen more clearly now, and which can perhaps be summed-up as ~ Dethroning the “governed” in Western societies . .

Tom Halla
Reply to  JohnKnight
December 20, 2017 2:31 pm

I know much more about Gore than Wirth, but Gore might be badly educated or stupid enough to actually believe the BS he pushes. As it is also useful for the politics he has, he has no reason to learn otherwise, either. If someone is selling homeopathic medicine, and making money at it, telling the yahoo that it is in the class of flat earth models will get you nowhere.

Reply to  JohnKnight
December 20, 2017 3:31 pm

“I know much more about Gore than Wirth, but Gore might be badly educated or stupid enough to actually believe the BS he pushes.”

It seems to me that throughout history (and still in most of the world), rule by consent of the governed is not truly appreciated as a wise course for humanity to follow, by some who fancy themselves much more capable of ruling well than the governed are . . and that failing to seriously consider the potential that what we are witnessing is part of an ongoing attempt by many who likewise fancy themselves, to overthrow/undermine this recent societal development, would be . . gross negligence (or extreme carelessness at least ; ) on the part of those who feel that the West reverting to rule by an “elite” few would be a very bad thing . .

Reply to  JohnKnight
December 20, 2017 5:23 pm

John Knight

It seems to me that throughout history (and still in most of the world), rule by consent of the governed is not truly appreciated as a wise course for humanity to follow,

Rather, and here we digress into supposition and generalities and assumptions!, but the time-ancient Rule of Kings should be apprecciated for its virtues and longevity. A “king” (Queen, duke, monarch, princesses and princes, etc, etc, etc….) brings both the decision-making and ultimate responsibility back to the “One who would be king” as Kipling phrased it: If he/she prevails and succeeds, their their nation/kingdon succeeds.

And, since the primary method of replacing unpopular or unsuccessful kings is by rebellion of the masses (and subsequent death of the entire current royal family and all of its heirs and relatives) OR by invasion by the other nearby, more successful kingdoms and empires (and the subsequent death of the entire royal family and all its heirs and relatives) then the ultimate Darwinian “rule of succeed and breed well or fail to succeed at all and all die” falls into place.

Cook’s Rule of Successful Succession:
A “good ruler” leads a successful nation-state and his/her sons and daughters remain in power to breed and grow more successful. An unsuccessful ruler is killed, and his/her specie dies out in bloody rebellion by rocks, knives, daggers, poisons, swords and guillotines or firing squads (pick your century).

Note that ALL of today’s most unsuccessful rulers of the world’s most least likely to succeed states (the nations across the EU, Canada, NZ, etc MOST intersted in fighting the declared hazeds of CAGW) have no children and thus, they have voluntarily decided to have NO Future on this earth. Fundamentally, the rulers of these “modern” nations are the first rulers EVER who “Do Not Care Whether Their Nation Is Successful” in the future. And their decision reflects that choice. But they ARE praised on honored “today” by the CAGW media and it apostles in other failing states!

Is it then any wonder where their loyalty lies? To the “present masses in the press and TV and media who worship at the thrones of environmentalism and “the most good for the most people in the shortest time” (so they will still like me!) ….

Reply to  JohnKnight
December 20, 2017 5:02 pm

““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.…” (Tim Worth)”

That’s like saying we should arrest everyone in a high crime neighborhood, just to be safe.

Reply to  JohnKnight
December 21, 2017 11:58 am

“Fundamentally, the rulers of these “modern” nations are the first rulers EVER who “Do Not Care Whether Their Nation Is Successful” in the future.”
I suggest that there are wealthy/powerful people throughout the world who do care, and who are willing to pay handsomely to promote those who don’t, in order to sabotage/defame the West, so it will not stand as a constant reminder of what could be, if the Western model were emulated . .

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 21, 2017 12:54 am

General Montgomery classified his officers as Enthusiastic or Lazy, Clever or Idiots.
He considered the most dangerous to be the enthusiastic idiots.
We seem to have a surplus of these in the climate field.

December 20, 2017 9:05 am

The UN is pushing ideology and won’t change their propaganda. What have the UN bureaucrats done for the West other than fight it at every turn? Their Globalist agenda is aimed at destroying the Western economies so they can implement their precious Agenda 21 world wide with them as the government and savior. They own a compliant media and are using it to their advantage and they almost got away with owning the internet in America. The so called ‘alt right’ is really people coming to their senses to confront this takeover. They are putting all their wood into the AGW arrow.

Reply to  markl
December 20, 2017 5:03 pm

One graphic says it all: Who actually paid in to the Paris Green Climate fund?comment image

Reply to  Wally
December 21, 2017 7:55 am

Indeed that little chart almost says it all. The ultimate cost to the USA alone if we stayed in and abided by Paris would be many times a billion dollars not counting the reduction in potential GDP. The Chinese know from their history that a rich nation is far better able to adapt to environmental change no matter what the cause than a poor one.

Reply to  markl
December 20, 2017 5:31 pm

UNEP & ideas42, 2017

Re: “Behavioural Insights” and Ideas42 HQ is New York City.

‘Consuming Differently, Consuming, Sustainability, Behavioural Insights for Policymaking’, 62 pages

Document includes issues such as: Energy, Transportation, Food & Diet.

“Behavioural Insights” is about changing peoples’ behaviour, sustainability, government involvement in this, and is now worldwide.

Dates back to 2009 in the U.S. and 2010 in the U.K.

UNEP Document download at:

Government of Canada, July 3, 2017

Policy Brief which includes some history of “Behavioural Insights”, dating back to the U.K. c. 2010.

‘Behavioural Insights Brief: Overview of Behavioural Insights’

There is much more information on “Behavioural Insights” use around the world on the internet.

Reply to  Barbara
December 20, 2017 6:48 pm

In the U.S.

Re: Behavioral Science Insights

SBST / Social and Behavioral Sciences Team

Follow: Resources Links for more information.

Reply to  Barbara
December 21, 2017 3:52 pm

Ontario Energy Board, Dec., 2014

Re: Behavioural Economics.

‘Behavioural Economics Review: Analyzing and Nudging Energy Conservation and Demand Shifting Through Time of Use Compliance’, 125 pages.

Document has more information on “Behaviour” with references.

Reply to  Barbara
December 21, 2017 5:40 pm

White House Archives, Sept.15, 2015

Executive Order, Re: Behavioral Insights

‘Executive Order — Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People’

Reply to  Barbara
December 21, 2017 7:59 pm


Re: Behavioural Insights

The Innovation Hub

Central Innovation Hub Privy Council Office

‘First Annual Report’, March 2016, 15 pages

Reply to  Barbara
December 21, 2017 10:48 pm

The Innovation Hub, March, 2016

Re: Behavioural Insights

‘First Annual Report’

Reply to  Barbara
December 22, 2017 9:10 am

The Innovation Hub

Webpage also has links for more information.

Reply to  Barbara
December 22, 2017 1:41 pm


Behavioural Insights and Public Policy

“Lessons from Around the World”, Pub. March 01, 2017

Includes countries and the UN.

Mark - Helsinki
December 20, 2017 9:06 am

Trudeau serves the commie Trudeau first, commie UN second and Canada third, or fourth or whatever 😀

December 20, 2017 9:08 am

Based on the Regan and first Bush administration calling Hansen a lunatic for his chicken little alarmism, his motivation to push the lie was nothing more than an egotistic attempt to save face at the expense of the science.

Dave Fair
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 20, 2017 12:27 pm

One needs to admire Hansen’s consistency; he believes the Paris Accord is crap and isn’t afraid to say so. But he lost his sway on CAGW because he spoke truth to power.

Dogma must be served before rationality: If Hansen doesn’t believe in Paris, he has to go. Look to Cuba and Venezuela for examples of the triumph of dogma.

December 20, 2017 9:10 am

This is the biggest own goal by “Science” every. Hopefully, a future lesson on just how irrational we can be when we are scared. Although warming did happen, from mid-1970s to late 1990s, but it was not, primarily, driven by CO₂.

See “Climate Change “Problem” Solved – its Natural”. Conclusions:

– Climate change during recent centuries is periodic
– Warming since 1870, attributed to CO₂, is really caused by ~200 year (solar) De Vries Cycle
– Present cooling and increased warming (1970-1997) is due to 65-year AMO/PDO cycles
– There is no trace of CO₂ causing warming.

Prof Weiss, youtube:

Paper:- H.-J. Lüdecke, C. O. Weiss, and A. Hempelmann, 2015. doi:10.5194/cpd-11-279-201

Reply to  mark4asp
December 20, 2017 10:16 am

That graph would seem to be predicting that temperatures should have dropped by around 0.5 C to 0.75 C since 2000.

Reply to  Bellman
December 20, 2017 11:00 am

The problem with assessing that statement is that the rise given by the GISS between 1950 and 2000 rose significantly after 2000. The single decade of most warming in the 20th century happened at the 21st century. Sic.

We have the word of Mosher and some serious scientists that these new numbers are better than the old ones, but I’m still suffering disbelief after Heller showed near perfect correlation between an average adjustment in the US and the CO2 concentration at the time. Haven’t seen anybody with credible mathematical skills to show that Heller is speaking nonsense. I know for sure Heller’s method does not represent a spatial trend, but even if it doesn’t the correlation is telling the tale of forged statistics by manipulation of the station composition / data. And that is faah king incredible and serious.

About Hansen’s testimony. I reckon the PC view is that Wirth lied about what ‘they’ did. I’m not sure if we should believe a lying person i.e. politician, but on the other hand this story is a prime example of politicization of factoids so that lots of people are permanently mislead. So the story must be told.

Reply to  mark4asp
December 20, 2017 10:40 am

No warming from 1980 – 1997.
comment image

Reply to  AndyG55
December 20, 2017 11:05 am

Did I hear the sound of cherry-picking? Again Andy, you are a man with dome humor, please use that.

Reply to  AndyG55
December 20, 2017 11:33 am

UAH 6 shows warming at the rate of 0.8C / century over that period.

But you raise a good point, the graph in the video shows warming of 1.5 over that period, so I’m not sure what the graph is actually showing.

Smart Rock
Reply to  mark4asp
December 20, 2017 7:38 pm

Interesting that Weiss’ time series which was derived from 6 stations in “central Europe” show larger swings than global averages. Not surprising really; averaging does tend to smooth things out.

The variations are also greater than those in the CET, perhaps temperature changes are moderated in an island environment as compared to the middle of a continent.

Documenting climate changes from individual stations or groups of stations might tell us a lot more than what we know now. Wish I had the time to do that, but pressure of work, blah blah blah. Instead, we have homogenized, adjusted and kriged data from our masters. And I still don’t get why a statistical method developed to analyse the distribution of gold grades in South African mines would be applicable to widely separated temperature records. Perhaps because it gives the answers that they want to see?

December 20, 2017 9:19 am

I remember when Hart and Wirth were Colorado’s Senators. Colorado is better of now that we are Hart-less and Wirth-less. Now if only some day we are Bennett-less.

Joel O'Bryan
December 20, 2017 9:59 am

“She too either does not know that CO2 is not a pollutant, or she is deliberately misleading people.”

Why not both? Stupid is not mutually exclusive of dishonesty, especially in politics where it intersects with spending OPM.

December 20, 2017 10:14 am

Keep up the good work Dr. Ball.
The political freak show called global warming will persist as long as there is money to be made by the media exploiting the gullible.
Look! There’s a UFO.
Look! A two headed baby.
Look! A train wreck with dead bodies.
Look! A starving polar bear.

CO2 is not pollution.

December 20, 2017 10:15 am

Wirth and Hansen didn’t do it alone. They had help from big science machinery, who forms a symbiosis with government bureaucracy. Here’s an excellent example of how it was and continues to be done.

All paid for with taxpayer funds.

December 20, 2017 10:29 am

If Hansen’s science was so strong, so compelling, so “certain about it”, why did he and Wirth need to resort to cheap sweaty tactics to convince the Senate panel?

Leaving aside my skepticism about the ability to predict the warmest day of the year and turn off air-conditioning with no one noticing, I find it really puzzling that anyone would base their decisions on one hot day in the office. It would be as daft as arguing that there was no global warming because it was snowing in winter.

Reply to  Bellman
December 20, 2017 11:05 am

Sadly much of the world thinks with their emotions in the driver seat. Anything that can be used to influence their emotions, physical discomfort for example, is a powerful control.
This is how seductive advertisement works. It is designed to catch useful fools.

Reply to  Bellman
December 20, 2017 1:08 pm

I don’t know about Washington DC, but the middle of June is not the hottest part of the year around here, it’s the middle of August. I’m skeptical that the hottest part of Washington DC’s year is in June.

Roger Knights
Reply to  TA
December 21, 2017 4:51 am

I read here a year ago or so that Feb. 26 is the coldest day of the year, on average, and August 26 is the warmest.

December 20, 2017 10:53 am

“Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna” – Her real title is The Honourable Minister of Environment and Climate Change. They put the “and Climate Change” at the end of Environment Minister, when Trudeau became Prime Minister and appointed his first cabinet. That in itself is very telling on their policies towards climate science. With her pronouncements against anyone who even remotely deviates from the official script about the 97% consensus on climate change, she has immediately and publicly labeled them Deni@rs. And very publicly.

It is absolutely no wonder that her critics in the Official Conservative Opposition called her a “Climate Barbie” and a “Bimbo” on Twitter. While they were forced to ‘officially’ apologize in the House of Commons for using scurrilous speech, she continues her attacks on anyone questioning the official dogma of CAGW and is still referred to in this fashion in much of Canada by centre right conservatives, partly because of the way she has dressed (like a teenage bopper going to a concert) and partly due to obvious total lack of intellect and lack of intelligence, because she talks like a clueless imbecile. She is definitely out of her league and clueless about the science of climatology. Hence the attack on her as the platinum blonde “bimbo”. While I do not really agree we should conduct ourselves in that kind of sexist speech, she brings it on herself when she descends to calling anyone and everyone a Deni@r that doesn’t agree with her consensus. That is a much more grave and damaging way of addressing people than the tired cheap cliche of bimbo or barbie. Or at least as obnoxious, and why people descend to these low levels to meet her at own level. She has brought this on herself totally by her contempt for anyone who dares speak up against her opinion of climate science.

The total and absolute lies that Trudeau and McKenna tell every day about their support of current climate policy like the Paris Accord are definitely used as justification for a Carbon Tax across all of Canada, enforced upon the provinces whether they like it or not. Just a tool to pick our pockets and steal from ordinary Canadians, because they need the revenue to pay for all their sadistic Marxist agenda. There hasn’t been this much seething hatred for a Prime Minister like Justin Trudeau since his Prime Minister father, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. But he does have a significant following, especially outside of the country where he he has been giving money away to UN interests, so as Canada can ‘purchase’ a Seat at the UN Security Council. At least Trump hasn’t been fooled by this hype, and neither does Trump try and take advantage of the American people by imposing a crippling carbon tax on its people.

Reply to  Earthling2
December 20, 2017 1:19 pm

“and neither does Trump try and take advantage of the American people by imposing a crippling carbon tax on its people.”

Instead, Trump cuts taxes, and lets people keep more of their own hard-earned money, instead of giving it to government bureaucrats to waste.

Trump’s new tax cut just got passed by both Houses of Congress and is awaiting Trump’s signature.

Right after the taxcut bill passed, AT&T announced they were going to give every one of their employees a $1,000.00 bonus and were going to invest an additonal $1 billion-plus in new infrastructure.

It looks like winning to me. I love winning. 🙂

Thomas Homer
December 20, 2017 10:57 am

[“By constantly railing about “carbon emissions,” Trudeau, Obama and others encourage people to think of carbon dioxide as something “dirty,” like soot, which really is carbon.”]

How do those folks reconcile the fact the we purposefully inject (dirty/sooty)CO2 into beverages for human consumption? – carbonated beverages

We purposefully force water and air through activated charcoal (carbon) filters to purify them.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Thomas Homer
December 20, 2017 4:25 pm

It shows the results of an effectice doubt campaign.
Not only do you think CO2 can’t be a pollutant but you actually seem to believe “those folks” are deluding themselves because they think soft-drink contains their own CO2 bogeyman.

That’s a long way down a rabbit hole Thomas.

Bruce Cobb
December 20, 2017 11:49 am

Everything about it was fake;
The Science – Fake
The Planetary Threat – Fake
Various and sundry threats to Polar Bears, Arctic Ice, and a big long list of things threatened – Fake
The Consensus – Fake
The Planetary Resolve to “fix” the climate – Fake
Etc. Etc. Etc.

December 20, 2017 12:11 pm

“That is why the Royal Society’s official motto is “Nullius in verba,” Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it.” Ironically, the Society rarely practices this approach when it comes to climate change.”

It is not just about climate, this was about oysters, citing three papers, eleven authors (I am one).
Proceedings of the Royal Society B. (2012) 279:3398.) “….WE SEEK TO END THE DEBATE…” They also used the word skeptic, which is OK.

The Reverend Badger.
December 20, 2017 12:30 pm

A plan for action:

If we can get about 20-30 good qualified scientists / Phds / Engineers together to do the proper research, experiments, publications, etc in order to show the whole world how the atmosphere really works it will be of great benefit to mankind for millenia to come. The work can be funded via crowd funding. I expect there will be quite a few on our side who would be happy to donate not just money but perhaps equipment, premises, etc.

The UK might be more suitable than USA for this as we don’t seem to have the same risk of greenblob terrorism over here and you have quite a free reign in setting up companies to do whatever you like.

Participants must be totally open minded and committed to just finding out the truth of atmospheric physics not simply trying to “prove” their pre-existing theories. I expect we may well be looking at the pool of retired experts here as in the short term any participation may be career suicide. In the medium/long term you may well all be sharing a Nobel.

John F. Hultquist
December 20, 2017 12:36 pm

Later, it was learned, that Wirth and Hansen resorted to some “stagecraft” in order to make their argument so convincing.

This is not true, and has been known for a long time. You should not be treating it as true in a post with “fake news” in your title.

It is FAKE

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 20, 2017 2:59 pm

Not the senator,
It’s much more likely to be true than not.

Many years ago, so it is said, there was a bet that a Zippo Lighter would light 10 times in a row. If not – – a finger was cut off. [Later this idea was incorporated into a short story and a movie.]

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 20, 2017 3:45 pm

It’s much more likely to be true than not. When Wirth first began telling that story interviewers went around to the very thermostats and windows described, and Wirth and another man showed reporters where these places were.

Interesting. I’ve only seen the PBS interview, and that makes no mention of thermostats. Do you have a link to these interviews?

Any reasonable adult watching Wirth tell his story on video can see Wirth knew every word of what he was saying, was true.

I assume he believes it, but I suspect he’s his memory of events 20 years ago are confused. The claim about scheduling the hearing for the 23rd June because the weather bureau said it was historically the hottest day of summer, makes no sense. I suspect he might have phoned the bureau at some point to find out when it would be hottest, and he remembers that the day of the hearing was a record breaking hot day and conflates these events into a narrative where he was able to play a cleaver trick of scheduling.

As to opening windows, I have no idea if that was feasible or happened, but I can find no evidence that the hearing was outrageously hot. It was 36+ outside, there was a lot of camera lighting inside, and supposedly the AC wasn’t working – yet no one seems to have noticed the AC not working or thought to close the windows.

Bare in mind Wirth said they opened the windows the night before – the hearing was mid afternoon. Surely someone would have noticed the problem before then.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 21, 2017 6:32 am

John F. Hultquist: “Zippo Lighter would light 10 times in a row”

December 20, 2017 1:37 pm

I guess we can say that James Hansen is the author of the greatest waste of money and resources in world history. What are the consequences of this huge waste of TRILLIONS of dollars on human lives?

Reply to  TA
December 20, 2017 4:30 pm

….. and not only that, probably the biggest mistaken calculation in the history of science. The oceans boiling due to back radiation from anthropogenic CO2. The biggest cockwomblefraud in the history of science, I reckon.

In other times, crows would have pecked his eyes out from a crossroads gibbet long before we got to this disgusting point.

Reply to  philincalifornia
December 20, 2017 4:32 pm

….. even beats out Lysenko, and Mann will never usurp those two, no matter how hard he twitters.

Reply to  TA
December 21, 2017 5:55 am

Facebook is a close second.

December 20, 2017 6:58 pm

. . . And all this happened just a decade after the global cooling/ ice age coming scare. One decade. So the warming trend in 1988 didn’t even fit their own definition of ‘climate’ as 3 decades or more, and Hansen declared 99% certainty that that short trend was due to mankind. How on earth did he get away with that – he should have been laughed out the room.

December 20, 2017 10:45 pm

Who funds you? Perhaps you funding drives your conclusions.
Clearly the earth is a limited system. Therefore you can only gass it up so much?
It seems that your reasoning is political, as are many of your commentors. This reasoning is clearly not rational. Unfortunately USA is in the grips of corporate control. This is not democracy.

Reply to  Yoda
December 21, 2017 7:14 am

Syntax wrong, Yoda’s is. Wrong also, assertions be.

Roger Knights
December 21, 2017 4:19 am

“He should also launch a “Red Team” exercise”

He may be waiting until Monckton’s paper gets published, so he has a “news peg” to justify an investigation into doubts about CAGW.

Robert M? FLaherty
December 21, 2017 4:39 am

I will write a chech/chequer to any one who can convince me that CAGW exists
…10,000 US dollars

Rod Everson
December 21, 2017 6:55 am

One of the real problems with putting the brakes on this scam is that some parties couldn’t care less about CO2, but they love the idea of imposing a carbon tax. The Wall Street Journal editorial desk, for example, will occasionally suggest that taxing “carbon” would be a good way to raise money compared to raising taxes on producers. This, despite their generally skeptical attitude toward the global warming crowd.

December 21, 2017 6:57 am

‘What emerged, say linguists, was a nograj called Climate English [CE]. Historically, the problem with scientific jargon is that it only makes sense if you understand science. CE, by contrast, only makes sense if you don’t.’

December 21, 2017 7:42 am

I can understand Hansen heating up the hearing room to promote global warming but the congress submitting to it and allowing that to influence their thinking is dumb.

Ian Macdonald
December 21, 2017 8:20 am

“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.…”

At $1500 billion a year I’m not so sure about that. We could develop thorium LFTR, fusion, or any number of other projects for a tiny fraction of that cost.

Even the Pyramids, that other most massively costly and seemingly pointless project in history, yielded 4,500 years worth of tourist trade. That must have been a net benefit to Egypt. I see no similar benefit from climate alarmism.

December 21, 2017 11:09 am

As for Wirth saying in the PBS interview that according to the “weather bureau”, historically the hottest day in Washington DC is around June 6th or 9th or so: Historically, the hottest day in a Washington DC summer is usually sometime from the second week of July to the first week of August.

December 22, 2017 2:35 am

Why does Dr. Ball not mention that the Global Warming story was pushed into international politics by Margaret Thatcher?

December 22, 2017 8:39 am

Dr. Ball is this website’s
climate history / politics
most outstanding reporter.

As soon as I saw the title of this article,
I clicked on it, hoping Dr. Ball’s was the author.
And I got lucky.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 22, 2017 8:41 am

that was meant to be:

“Dr. Ball was the author.”

I type with two fingers,
and my eyes closed.

Luc Ozade
December 22, 2017 10:57 am

Excellent article, Dr Ball (also Tom Harris). Thank you – and the best of Christmas wishes to you.

December 23, 2017 3:58 pm

I continue to fail to understand why even here Hansen’s quantitatively absurd GHG hypothesis ( not deserving of the term ) for why the bottoms of atmospheres are hotter than the spectral radiative equilibrium of planets and their atmospheres as a whole has not long ago been rejected as — first of all having NO quantitative analytical experimentally testable theoretic physical equation or experiment supporting it . Instead surviving for now decades despite the , again computationless equationless experimentless absurdity that some spectral effect traps a kinetic energy density at the bottom of Venus’s dense atmosphere 25 times the energy density the Sun delivers to its orbit .

Instead everybody but a few , labeled heretics , putter around debating whether CO2 forcing is x or half x or twice x.when the entire paradigm is computationally theoretically baseless — and in the case of Venus , absurd .

Let 2017 be the end of it .

The actual computationally consistent with observations — and for which there actually do exist simple classical theoretically base computations — is that ubiquitous other macroscopic force , whose name I will leave unspoken .

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights