By Tom Harris and Jay Lehr 

President Donald Trump was right to express skepticism about human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change in his October 14th interview on CBS television’s “60 Minutes.”

Contrary to Al Gore’s assertion in his PBS interview aired on October 12 that only “a few outliers” in the scientific community don’t support the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusions, there are many scientists who disagree with the U.N. on climate change.

Indeed, it was an understatement for the president to say in the” 60 Minutes” interview that “We have scientists who disagree with that,” in regard to the view that Greenland is melting significantly because of anthropogenic climate change.”

In his October 8 lecture for the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), Professor Richard Lindzen referenced “the finding by both NOAA [the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing.”

GWPF report that Lindzen, formerly Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology, “slammed conventional global warming thinking warming as ‘nonsense’.”

Many scientists agree with Lindzen and would applaud the president’s answer to the question posed by CBS’ Lesley Stahl, “Do you still think that climate change is a hoax?”

Trump responded,“I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade.”

In fact, the “Climate Change Reconsidered” series of reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) summarize thousands of studies from peer-reviewed scientific journals that either refute or cast serious doubt on the climate scare.

NIPCC’s latest document, titled “Summary for Policymakers — Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels,” (“CCR — II — Fossil Fuels”), reports the contributions of 117 scientists, economists, and other experts. They conclude that we are not causing a climate crisis and we should be increasing, not decreasing, our use of coal, oil and natural gas.

The “CCR — II — Fossil Fuels” report, released on October 5, states:

Fossil fuels have benefited humanity by making possible the prosperity that occurred since the first Industrial Revolution … Fossil fuels powered the technologies that reduced the environmental impact of a growing human population … Nearly all the impacts of fossil fuel use on human well-being are net positive (benefits minus costs) or are simply unknown.

The NIPCC is an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute.

“CCR — II — Fossil Fuels” is the fifth volume in the “Climate Change Reconsidered” series, and, like the preceding volumes published in 200920112013, and 2014, it focuses on research overlooked or ignored by the IPCC.

The latest NIPCC report addresses every aspect of our climate from sea level to hurricanes, the fallacy of climate models, the physics that controls weather, the irrationality of thinking industrial societies can run on either wind or solar energy, and the erroneous science used by alarmists to scare the public.

One of the reasons that IPCC reports have little credibility is that they often ignore the scientific method of testing hypotheses. Trump was justified to say that scientists promoting the climate scare “have a very big political agenda.”

Indeed, the IPCC’s main focus is directed toward proving a political position rather than conducting an unbiased search for the truth. “CCR — II — Fossil Fuels” explains:

IPCC and its national counterparts have not conducted proper cost-benefit analyses of fossil fuels, global warming, or regulations designed to force a transition away from fossil fuels, nor are they likely to do so given their political agendas.

In the past 20 years, the climate scare has plagued every nation, wasting billions of dollars attempting the impossible, namely, to control the temperature of our planet. It has been driven largely by a combination of arrogance and ignorance coupled with a desire to place the government in charge of most activities in society.

President Trump is right, it’s time to stop the war on fossil fuels, on American prosperity, and on American jobs. It’s time to finally defeat what Canadian historical climatologist Dr. Tim Ball calls, “The greatest deception in history.”

Dr. Jay Lehr is the Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition and is also a policy advisor to Heartland.


  1. Carbon based life forms participate in the Carbon Cycle of Life.
    The Carbon Cycle of Life requires atmospheric Carbon Dioxide to complete.

    Fundamental science.

    Juxtapose that against the CAGW theory that has no Laws, Axioms, Postulates, nor formulae after more than a hundred years of research.

    Vacuous theory.

        • Laws of CAGW (after Newton)
          (1) Global Warming continues in its state of rest or of uniform ‘straight lining’ motion in a straight line unless an external influence applied by the IPCC causes it to change that state.
          (2) External influence = iM x (IPCC)^2 (where i is the square root of minus1)
          (3) Global Warming has equal and opposite Global Cooling. (after Boltmann).

          • correction……..’flat lining’ in a straight line….is more sensible. And, as a way of clarification….(IPCC)^2 as in feet per second squared….rather than (IPCC)^-2.

    • We need to shout it to the skies in a one-line sound-bite:
      We Deplorables get it. Now you need to make it simple enough for the “educated” to understand.
      Pres. Trump could tweet the above and change the game overnight.

      • How about this:

        Government bureaucrats
        with science degrees say
        the average temperature
        of our planet
        is up +1 degree C.
        since 1880,
        with very few
        Southern Hemisphere
        before World War II —
        should we panic now,
        or later?

        • coupled with a desire to place the government in charge of most activities in society.

          No, you have not been paying attention. The aim is usurp the power of governments and put the UN in charge.

          • But governments go along with it because they’ll still get a piece of the action before the UN is fully in charge.

        • But that still leaves me wondering, did average high temperatures go up by 2 degrees, or did the average low temps go up by two degrees, or did the whole range of temperatures go up by one degree, or were the older temperature readings off by one degree, or something else?

      • What is curious is that the very slight climatic changes we have witnessed over the past decades are unlikely to have been noticed by any but those actually taking measurements. The huge ruckus over “dangerously changing” climate has caused a great deal of anxiety for people who would otherwise be totally oblivious to the weather or climate.

  2. Trump should have lectured Stahl on the perils of begging the question, but she probably wouldn’t know what that means.

    • I don’t think Stahl was begging the question though perhaps the position she was defending was begging the question (such as where is the proof of a causal link between rising CO2 and Earth’s temperature?).

    • Where I live, if we suddenly stopped the use of fossil fuels, people would start dying but climate change would continue. Even if we could some now stop the climate from changing we would still experience extreme weather events and sea level rise because they are part of the current climate.

  3. I would sipuggest that Trump should pose the following question: If we were to cease using all fossil fuels, would the climate stop changing?

    • Better question to ask: If we were to cease using all fossil fuels, would you eat tomorrow? How about next week?

      • Here in Canada we are more worried about freezing to death than eating. Without fossil fuels, 50% of Canadians would freeze to death this coming winter because they wouldnt be able to afford the electricity usage from plug in electrical heaters.

        • Alan,
          I mist say that I have not been able to understand Canada’s official policy of “saving the world” by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

          Surely a few degrees of warming would enable millions acres of land, currently useless, to become productive.

          Surely that would be a plus right?



          • Hi Roger,

            I (we) predicted in an article written 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald that naturally-caused global cooling would resume by 2020-2030. I am leaning toward a bit earlier, but this is a complex issue and “The science is NOT settled”.

            Depending on the amount of cooling, this could move Canada’s grain-growing region further south, for example making agriculture in the Peace River district uneconomic due to earlier frosts.

            Dr. Tim Ball published this article recently, and mentioned the Peace River District, where Alberta Premier Rachel Notley hails from:


            “The Peace River country began to open to energy potential, mostly natural gas, in the early 20th century, but agricultural settlement was boosted by the global warming that occurred from 1900 to 1940; a greater warming than occurred after 1980. THE REGION WAS AFFECTED BY THE COOLING AFTER 1940 AND BY THE 1970S WAS STRUGGLING TO MAINTAIN ITSELF. I KNEW SEVERAL FARMERS WHO HOMESTEADED IN THE REGION ONLY TO LOSE THEIR LAND. It is interesting to consider the adaptations made to survive. Beef cattle became a major industry, and some farmers re-introduced bison, but perhaps the most interesting was the production of grass seed. Luckily, the cooling did not continue, and the Peace prospered. It certainly would benefit from global warming, although there is another limit, the soils. THE QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS IF WARMING DOES NOT OCCUR AND COOLING RETURNS AS THE BEST CLIMATE EXPERTS EXPECT?”

          • I mist (must) say that I have not been able to understand Canada’s official policy of “saving the world” by removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

            Our leader is a virtue signalling twit born rich. He seems to be more focused in being considered “woke” than in the realities of life for the average Canadian eking out a living in a northern country.

          • I keep wondering about that, two. There are lots of countries in the extreme north and south that would suddenly become prime real estate – rulers of the world – if only global warming was real.

          • At the present time, there is only a narrow band across Canada where food can be grown?
            About 120 frost-free days are desirable?

            Importing food can become expensive?

        • Gentlemen, you are correct.

          Eliminate fossil fuels and most people in the developed world would be dead within a few months.

          The destructiveness of warmist scientists and politicians is astonishing – these villains and fools should not even opine on energy, let alone set energy policy.

          The policies of these climate clowns are so destructive that one has to wonder if this is their true intention. Many of them say they want to reduce world population; well, their energy policies will certainly do that.

          Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.

          We have known these facts since forever, and published them in 2002 (below).

          Regarding energy policy, we are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.

          Regards, Allan


          Energy is my area of expertise and I have a very successful predictive track record. I have two engineering degrees and have studied this subject for many decades.

          Fully 85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels, and the rest is hydro and nuclear. Green energy would be near-zero except for massive wasted subsidies and use mandates. Only a few places have enough hydro to provide their needs, and greens hate hydro. The only practical alternative is nuclear, and the greens hate nuclear too.

          Without fossil fuels, most people in the developed world would just freeze and starve to death. This means you and your family.

          [excerpts from 2009 and 2002]

          Re successful predictions, here is one that the Europeans should have heeded, as cold sets in and their inadequate alternative energy systems fail to keep them from freezing this winter.

          This disastrous scenario was predicted by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and me in September 2002, at:

          “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

          Regards, Allan

    • Could Donald Trump:
      (1) Either stop UN funding or at least match the contributions made by the Soviet Union (like GDP x 10^-20)
      (2) Put up the rent of the UN building from zero to say $1000 per square metre or preferably per square foot.
      Or would he have to get permission from Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.

    • SuffolkBoy

      I’m not sure he would be interested in the home counties, London centric, BBC socialist enclave.

      • BBC 3 is absolutely soul destroying. I got suckered in by a couple of good concerts. I deeply regret a few days when I could have been listening to something else.

        • Just skimming through that document makes me want to vomit. It’s riddled with references to “CO2” and “communication” and “efforts to mitigate climate change.” Their so-called “science” was “settled” before they did any scientific inquiry.

          When you begin with a conclusion and work backwards trying to justify it, what you’re doing sure as hell isn’t “science.”

  4. Some things we know for certain about the AGW concept.

    1. In over 40 years of climate hysteria, no one has yet determined, by empirical means that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global warming. In fact, no one has ever established it. Yet the future of mankind is predicated on a hypothesis that cant be demonstrated in the wild.

    2. The only observable manifestation of note, of increased atmospheric CO2, is that the planet has greened by 14% in 35 years of satellite observations according to NASA. One of the authors commented that it’s the equivalent of two continents the size of mainland USA worth of vegetation.

    3. The planet is at the coldest it has ever been, there being only two other periods as cold, before descending into a full blown ice age. The planet is, in fact, a mere few degrees centigrade away from the threshold which is perilously close.

    4. Atmospheric CO2 is coincidentally, and simultaneously, around the lowest it has ever been in the planets history. At 280 ppm before the industrial revolution it was a mere 130 ppm away from the extinction of all meaningful plant life and shortly thereafter, humankind itself.

    5. John Tyndall concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.

    6. Water vapour forms ~95% of all atmospheric gases, CO2 ~3%.

    7. CO2 sequestration was a natural, historical, accidental, recurring event. It was both sequestrated and released by various means numerous times in the past with no detrimental effect on life. The events promoting sequestration may have been disastrous for life, but CO2 was not the cause.

    8. The speed of what little warming the planet is enduring is far from ‘unprecedented’, it has happened numerous time in the past.

    9. Even in a sophisticated, technologically advanced global society, cold kills far more people than heat.

    Doubtless the denizens of WUWT will contribute more known facts to this list, but these are the observations of a layman and the reasons I am convinced any global warming, and increases in atmospheric CO2, will be hugely beneficial to mankind.

    • Sorry…….

      Point six is wrong. Water vapour forms ~95% of all greenhouse gases, not atmospheric gases.

      My enthusiasm running away with my digits.

    • The most important fact
      is that no one can predict the climate,
      other than saying it always changes

      … and if we had a choice,
      most people would prefer
      a harmless degree or two of
      warming, rather than
      a degree or two of cooling

      … which is exactly what we got
      since the cold Maunder Minimum
      period in the late 1600s — I’d say at least
      +2 degrees C. of warming since then.

      And as a result,
      we now live in
      the best climate
      for humans and animals
      in hundreds of years
      — possibly in
      thousands of years.

      But we are not allowed
      to enjoy our fine climate,
      because of braying donkey leftists,
      trying to convince the sheeple
      this is NOT a wonderful climate
      (who are you
      going to believe
      — your own senses,
      or a climate
      confuser model?)
      … it’s really the beginning
      of a climate catastrophe,
      that can only be stopped
      by a strong central government,
      led by leftists, and the usual
      slow economic growth they bring!

      But now slow economic growth,
      under leftist socialism, can be spun
      as good news — slower growth =
      less carbon pollution !

      Got to give those
      smarmy leftists credit
      for their ability
      to scare people
      by predicting a “crisis”
      with confuser models,
      while completely ignoring
      the wrong predictions
      for the past three decades,
      … but never mind that !

      And a lot of other
      climate nonsense

      The ability to predict the climate nonsense
      = a fantasy, proven wrong in the past 30 years!

      The 95% confidence level nonsense
      = meaningless “vote” of personal confidence,
      with no relationship to real math or real science

      The +3.0 C. per doubling ECS claim nonsense
      = refuted by actual warming since 1950,
      where the worst case is +1.0 C. since 1950,
      not even close to +3.0 C.

      The +2.0 degrees C. is dangerous nonsense
      = refuted by at least +2 degree C.
      of warming since the late 1600s,
      that has been all good news!

      The +1.5 degree C. is dangerous nonsense
      = just more climate astrology BS
      from the smarmy leftists,
      because the +2.0 degrees C.
      did not scare enough people.

      I predict next year
      the leftists will claim
      +1.25 degrees C.
      is the new, revised
      “tipping point”,
      and if that
      doesn’t scare
      enough people,
      they will then claim
      “scientists say
      global warming
      significantly shrinks
      man’s favorite or-gan”

      CAGW is a fairy tale,
      so it can be changed
      at any time
      to be more scary, and
      the “CO2 problem”
      can also be declared
      to have been “solved”
      at any time, since there
      was never a real problem
      in the first place !

      My climate science blog,
      with over 26,000 page views so far:

        • Utter nonsense – warmth is NOT the problem.

          Circa 1990 I went for a swim at the Forty Foot at Dun Laoghaire near Dublin, one fine warm summer Sunday morning.

          The water temperature was colder than I’d ever experienced – I thought my heart would stop – I swam out to a big outcrop, shot back to the ladder, and climbed out, glad to still be alive.

          The little man was littler than he had ever been, and the twins were lost for an entire week.

    • You leave out probably the most important part, regardless of everything else the proposed CO2 prohibition solution will not work. The entire world is never going to stop economic activities that emit CO2 because there are too many benefits in doing so. At best the world will stop think about how to keep their emissions as low as they can and then emit them anyhow. You already see that happening with world emissions again relentlessly increasing.

      If there is a problem and we need a solution, real Science and Technology ultimately will provide it not some half baked political idea that gained popularity for a few years.

      • This half baked political idea has been carved into stone in the EU and its member states. The gospel according to the IPCC is revered and some of them are considering changing to pickled insect sandwiches for sustenance.

  5. On this issue there are two schools of science; the IPCC and the NIPCC.

    Trump opts for the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And so do the stock markets, bond markets and the climate change Sceptics. And it seems almost every consumer in the world.

    Millennial catastrophists opt for the IPCC. That’s because they don’t care about physical evidence, the scientific method or (above all) debate.

    The IPCC refuses to debate with Sceptics because they always lose.

    • M Courtney
      “On this issue there are
      two schools of science;
      the IPCC and the NIPCC.”

      WRONG !

      There is ONE “school” !

      The IPCC is a junk science “school”.

      The NIPCC is a real science “school”.

      The future climate
      is unknown
      using real science,
      but the past climate
      is known (roughly).

      The future climate “known”
      using junk science,
      but the past climate
      is constantly “changing” …
      from revisions,
      re-adjustments and

      Which one is a real science “school”?

      Just because there are people
      with science degrees around,
      doesn’t mean the work
      (of the IPCC)
      is real science —
      if it WAS real science,
      this blog would not be needed,
      at least not for CAGW skeptics
      — A. Watts might have
      a website for family recipes,
      and family pictures
      … or maybe something
      science-related, such as the
      fraud in general science,
      where half the “studies”
      can’t be replicated !

      I’d close my climate science blog ,
      and focus on my economics newsletter,
      economics blog and politics blog

      But the IPCC is not real science —
      it is wild guesses of the future climate,
      — predictions that have been
      far from reality for the past 30 years.

      If the climate predictions
      are that far off from the actuals,
      then the “science” has been falsified …
      oh, I forgot,
      the IPCCs junk science
      can NEVER be falsified,
      and don’t you forget it.

      Anyone who thinks
      the IPCC’s work
      is real science, is a
      bat, to use a technical term !

      • Richard, as one who lived through the propaganda of the Cold War, I must slightly disagree with your statement that the IPCC does ‘junk’ science. IMHO the IPCC is a very large and clever propaganda factory – it publishes one set of often credible but very selective ‘science’ reports, which is huge and almost nobody reads, and another set of much shorter ‘political’ reports (the SPMs) which disregard most of what the science reports say that doesn’t suit their purposes, except for the most extreme ‘scenarios’ that support their CAGW argument. This is purely so they can claim that their whole scam is based on ‘the best science’.
        Even the title of the SPM – “Summary for Policy Makers’ is cunningly misleading because it is actually a Summary BY Policy Makers – the IPCC’s unaccountable and largely unknown behind the scenes team of global political manipulators, aimed at convincing the horde of gullible politicians, advisers, rent seekers and so-called journalists that would rather cut and paste this crap than get off their @sses and do some solid fact checking that CAGW is real and just around the corner.
        IMO too many skeptics waste most of their anti-CAGW effort on the point that you are making, but the art of propaganda is not fundamentally about science or facts, it is about convincing enough gullible people, including those in high places, of their claims by any and all means, whilst discrediting everyone else.

        • BoyfromTottenham

          I wonder if the latest panic announcements have been made in the full knowledge that the world may well be heading for a cold period, in which case they will lose all their political leverage to turn the world into a socialist commune?

  6. It would have been a lot more entertaining if Trump kept promising billions and then never sent anything.

  7. How nice to have a President who does not automatically align himself with leftist causes du jour but instead by being skeptical shows he has a better grasp of science overall than most climate scientists.

    • Not Chicken Little

      How nice to have an honest to goodness right wing, straight talking, western world leader.

      Not since Margaret Thatcher has there been someone who would stand up for the little man in the street.

        • There is objection to govnt policy (Poll tax). Then there is outright unjustified rioting.

          As for miners pitty they took their dispute to the street killing an innocent driver who’s family suffered as a result.

          Cheery picking your history there Percy.

        • The miner in the street was a low-life Stalin wannabe named Scargill. God bless Maggie Thatcher. She saved Britain!

        • And the poll tax was an attempt to extract some tiny bit of something from the nation’s chronic work avoiders. Fit for destruction but allergic to work.

          • Hi Hot,
            Do you want to start by saying how destroying the culture and livelihood
            of miners in the north of England and the Welsh valleys was “standing up
            for the little man”? And then perhaps you can comment on how Obama’s
            war on coal and the destruction of the mining communities in rural USA
            is the exact opposite?

          • No, More mines closed under Wilson than under Thatcher.
            This was a natural part of an extractive industry. The seams become uneconomic and the miners move onto elsewhere. There was no policy of closing coal mines under Wilson.
            Under Thatcher there was a deliberate policy to close the industry. It was brought about by shortening the periods over which mines needed to be profitable before they were shut. Mines only make money when working a seam. When prepping a seam they lose money. Thus, one by one, the coal mines shut.

            Remember in the 80s the NUM said that there was a plan to close the industry and if they lost the strike all the mines would close. That is what happened.
            Predictions coming true are a good sign that the prediction was based on a sound understanding of reality.

          • Unlike the predictions of CAGW alarmists. None of their predictions have come true, thus showing CAGW alarmists do not have on a sound understanding of reality

          • “M Courtney October 19, 2018 at 5:44 am”

            Yes and no. I see your brother is still influencing you on this and you are trying to re-write history. It still affected mining families who could not move to another seam. In this respect the closures under Wilson (Labour, ie, socialist) affected more miners negatively than those under Thatcher.

            Thatcher is also blamed for the removal of free milk in schools and copped the nickname “Thatcher Thatcher the milk snatcher” when in fact in previous Labour govn’t the policy was more wide spread.

  8. Trump is right to question both the basis and money hunt motivations. The same questions apply to most court cases relying on questionable expert witnesses and non-expert deciders.

  9. Thank you both for your work in pulling all that material together.

    If Dr. Lehr can do so, though, I would urge him to have Heartland exercise more care in deciding about things like allowing Heartland’s lawyer to be listed as an attorney on that dreadful California v. BP amicus brief. Although the brief ended up being harmless, it could have had serious negative consequences. And, in any event, Heartland’s association with things like that make the organization look silly and irresponsible to people familiar with the relevant discipline.

  10. Some better answers:

    The business case to justify expensive actions, like some of which has been proposed, has simply not been made. Whatever you may think the underlying science says, you still need to justify spending. The expected benefits for a course of action needs to exceed the expected costs.


    Why is there so much overlap between those who see CO2 emissions as a major threat and thus favor radical action to reduce CO2 emissions, and those who have opposed nuclear power for the last 30 years? Why are we building windmills and not nuclear power plants?

    Why does it matter if the climate trend is caused by humans, or if it is a mostly natural global climate cycle? If warming is dangerous and we and we can do something about it, why should we not proceed even if it is natural?

    How will wealth transfers save the planet? Why are people so suspicious of possible financial motives of energy companies, but not suspicious of possible financial motives of those on the other side?

    If poor people are going to be more vulnerable to increased temperatures, how is making electricity more unaffordable going to save lives?

    If convincing those who are skeptical is necessary to save the planet, why are advocates of radical action unwilling to debate the topic?

    Why are people not suspicious of possible financial motives of a former politician turned investment banker who is making tens of millions of dollars from scaring people about global warming?

    • Steve O said
      ” If warming is dangerous and we and we can do something about it, why should we not proceed even if it is natural?”

      We can’t change the climate and why should we worry about something we can’t change. The best we can do is: if we perceive that the planet will get colder, we can plan for that. No need to plan for it getting warmer. People in deserts don’t go out in the noonday sun.

      • I agree 100%, Alan. I’m not suggesting that we should actually try. People often talk as if man-made warming is bad and needs to be mitigated, but natural warming is okay. There is no logical reason to make a distinction based on the source of the warming.

        If the source of warming is almost completely natural, but predictably catastrophic, and if we can cost-effectively prevent it, then we should logically proceed to prevent natural warming. Activists focus on the portion that may be man-made because it sounds too obviously stupid to spend money to interrupt the natural global climate cycle. But logically, there is no distinction.

        Another related point is that even if mankind is the proximate cause of most of the warming, and even if the effects are largely negative, there is very little we can actually do about it. A sober analysis will almost always show that even if you believed everything the alarmists said about worst case scenarios, we’d still be better off adjusting to the new climate than trying to mitigate it. If we have to move cities inland anyway, why waste money building windmills in a futile gesture that has no impact?

        • If the source of warming is almost completely natural, but predictably catastrophic, and if we can cost-effectively prevent it, then we should logically proceed to prevent natural warming

          We *can’t* change nature (not at that scale). It’s Hubris to think we can. if warming is almost completely natural then there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent it, all we can do is adapt to it as needed.

          Another related point is that even if mankind is the proximate cause of most of the warming, and even if the effects are largely negative, there is very little we can actually do about it.

          not true. if mankind is the cause then mankind can do something about – stop doing whatever it was we were doing to cause it. However, that solution is magnitudes worse than the “problem” in this case as it would require going back to a pre-industrial existence. as you say, we’d “be better off adjusting to the new climate than trying to mitigate it”

        • Windmills are being installed because they are part of the UN Global Agenda.

          The U.S. is still promoting wind turbine installations on land and offshore as part of the U.S. voluntary action to reduce global warming.

          The offshore wind project in Lake Erie near Cleveland is an example and has just been approved by DOE. As far as I know this is the first fresh water wind project in the world? Lake Erie is shallow and the easiest to install wind turbines in.

          The Great Lakes often freeze over during winter and if their underwater cables fail for any reason, then what will happen?

          The Great Lakes are a major source of drinking water for millions of people in the U.S. and Canada.

    • Why does it matter if the climate trend is caused by humans, or if it is a mostly natural global climate cycle?

      It matters a great deal because if it’s caused by humans that means human *can* do something about it (IE not do whatever it is they were doing to cause it). If it’s mostly natural, that means humans didn’t cause it and likely *can’t* do anything about it.

      If warming is dangerous and we and we can do something about it, why should we not proceed even if it is natural?

      see above, if it’s natural we can’t do anything about it. We can’t control nature (despite what some may have deluded themselves into thinking). It’s only if we are the cause that our actions would have any hope of having any effect on things. Besides which warming is *not* dangerous (certainly not at the miniscule amounts being posited), cooling is what is dangerous. Throughout history, for life on earth, warm periods have been times of prosperity and the cool periods have been times of misery.

    • Steve here in the UK our current crop of politicians are, with a little help from China, building Hinkley (Nuclear). My guess is that it will produce electricity some 3 to 5 times the cost of that coming out of Drax when running on coal. (They have it running on chipped and shipped US forests at the moment!) If anyone has the actual figures please comment. I also suspect that by the time it’s built and running molten salt reactors could be commercially available although doubt they would be competitive with coal.

  11. What about a campaign against the myth of “97 % of scientists believe in Global warming etc”

    Its still quoited and apparently believed. It may well bring down the Liberal Govt. of PM Morrison here in Australia, where a critical by election in Weentworth in NSW is being held tomorrow. Climate change is a major factor in that electorate.

    Prove that survey is nonsense, perhaps by having another survey, will help the skeeptics a lot.


  12. “President Donald Trump was right to express skepticism about human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change in his October 14th interview on CBS television’s “60 Minutes.”
    Last I heard, even if wrong, it was his right.
    Results may vary, come November 6th.

    • There won’t be a turnaround for the Dems. They are still fighting the last election. They should have had a thoughtful retrospective on why they blew it and got some new nonelitist non-Eurocentric soshulist blood from real America into the party to change direction. Everyone but the Demo leadership knows what happened. An honest Hillary would have written “WTF Realky Happened” instead of her blamijg everyone else.

      It is truly remarkable that an uncouth, vain, greenhorn outsider who had people holding their noses to vote him in didn’t tell these elitists something about themselves. They haven’t even had a policy gathering. They think they are just fine and that real Americans need a good talking down to. No uk(us). The MSM and pundits had Hillary in a landslide – 98% probability! They may get the message this time. If not, bet on a generation or more of the new revitalized right wing to be runni g things. The Republican dolittle elitists have been kicked out, too by Trump, the economy has never been better and freedom is alive and well again.

      • they know what happened, i think.
        the black bloc is what has been the winning card for the democrats since the civil rights act created the it.
        the last republican mayor of san francisco lost to moscone when a big democrat donor ‘reverend’ bussed in his mostly black congregation to stuff the ballot. moscone won by 4000 votes and everybody knew it was jim jones that made it happen.
        The Rev. Jim Jones (left) was an integral part of the Democratic Party political machinery in the San Francisco Bay Area. Through him and other ministers, especially in the African American communities, the party was able to construct an impregnable culture in the region based upon Marxist ideology. Political figures include the late San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, Congresswoman Nancy Peolsi, former SF Mayor Willie Brown and U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein.

        the internet broke the monopoly of the msm and thus control of the narrative of racial divisiveness and sexism that kept the faithful in continual phobic state that maintained the hermeticity.
        dems don’t debate issues, the issue sermons. they maintain an inquisition operating a continuous auto da fe purging heretics and threatening infidels.

        there is currently a mad scramble to control the social media and bring it to heel.

        kanye was seen as a terrible threat and special dispensation was given so that even white men on tv could call him a dumb negro without the usual strident accusation of racism.

        meanwhile, attempts to build a latino and youth bloc progressed.
        schools have been taken over and children are now indoctrinated in hatred even by their parents.

        at the present moment there is a ‘caravan’ of migrants headed to the usa who are organized and paid in cash to storm the border. coordinated media framing it as a humanitarian movement
        dems blocking funding for the wall
        pelosi calling it ‘trump’s macho problem

        but trump is a genius!!!
        trump says he will call out the army-
        tells mexican prez be ready to keep them, amigo
        so mexican army will deal with them
        not just denying the dem’s propaganda dept. of a ‘racist orange man’ narrative-
        but instead- it would have to be mexican brutality and inhumanity
        and that’s gonna go over great with the latinos

        if they were to get to the border, what will happen?
        won’t have to ask for funding

        trump is about ownership and creation of wealth
        dems are a cult.

  13. “The Cause”
    Polo-science. Knock a ball (the “scare”) around the field until you score your political goal.
    When the scare du jour fails to score, replace the “ball”.

    • A very apt summation. When AGW is dead, it will rise up as another fabricated emergency.
      The real culprit, after all these years, is still Karl Marx. What the world needs is a massive and dedicated education program to outline the many millions ( of dead) ways in which Marxism is philosophically, economically and morally wrong and always must and always has lead to human disaster.
      Until Marxism is crushed as an acceptable philosophy, we (humankind)will never be safe.

  14. I am a scientist. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. There may be many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

    Another reality is that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is too full of holes to support. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system on anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. The federal government is already deep in debt and does not need to be spending money on science fiction.

    • You. William. Are a scientist abd you find climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. I also am a scientist and have come to the same conclusion. Our backgrounds obviouly differ because I spent my effort in the Apollo Lunar Lander project until that clown Nixon shut it down. That forced me into the teaching field and I did not take an interest in climate until ten years after I retired. What woke me up was Al Gore babbling about a twenty foot high sea rise and Florida under wate, an obvious impossibility. But let me explain why CO2 cannot tdo that warming. That CO2 did it seemed to be in the air. Hence, global warming charts reflected itUt was natural to assume that the CO2 greenhouse effect in the air. Lookimg at the temperature chart for the 20th century, people draw a straight libe from 0 to100 forbthe length of the century. a Despite numerous side steps they calculate the “CO2 warmig” from the slope of that line. This, of coyrse, Is a totally wrong way to measure warming. Global temperature goes up and down in segments 30 or more years long. Ley me give you an example. Glonaj temperature decreased from 1885 to 1910. A 35 year stretch it was. Then it abruptly it reversed itself and kept warming until 1940, another thirty year stretch. And then it suddenlyre-reversed itself to to bring us the notorious WWII cold spell. If you are gaing to blame CO2 for it you will find from the Keeling curve that CO2 did absolutely nothing during this oeriod, There is no way you can claim that CO2 had abything to do with it. So what is causing these sudden warming/cooling that nhes we observe? If you give it some thought, the anawer is obvious. More tha likely we are dealing with changes of large-scale global wind patterns that previously were shown to have a role in the El Nino phenomenon. I expect spme of the newer satellites to be useful in identifying them.. Arno

      • Stopped reading after you said “clown Nixon shut it down.”
        Ya gotta work stuff like that in slowly, ya can’t just throw it in the readers face.

  15. Planet circa 6.4bn yrs old. 500m years ago we saw the first signs of life. Small sea creatures etc. Bit by bit grasses and plants took hold.
    What started it all? 4,500ppm of CO2 …. CO2 comes from Volcanoes. The planet became so successful it gobbled away at the CO2….end last Ice Age 14,000 years ago. CO2 in the atmosphere 180ppm, only 30ppm above extinction for all of us.
    So what is the explanation of why 4,500ppm on planet Earth survived and flourished?
    Simple……….Carbon Dioxide ability to create heat is a Logarithmic Curve.
    Sadly the Green idiots were not aware of the Logarithmic nature of Atmospheric CO2. When Mrs Thatcher heard what the Greens were saying it was the perfect excuse to destroy the National Union of Mine Workers. Enter Gore et al and CO2 becomes and industry.
    It goes on and on…..throw in corruption, BBC, UK Met Office, The Guardian Newspaper then whatever WE SAY forget it.
    All those above fly around the World for holidays etc..
    Hypocrisy?…yes but “Guardianistas” will never admit they are wrong on anything…I have to mates and if the words “I read it in the Guardian” come into any conversation just change the subject.
    It is the newspaper of the educational professionals and in their world they have the most stressful of jobs.
    In the real world it is Air Traffic Controllers who have the most stressful and demanding of jobs.

    • James Griffin
      October 18, 2018 at 8:37 pm

      I assume you meant planet is 4.6 billion years old?

      “In the real world it is Air Traffic Controllers who have the most stressful and demanding of jobs.”…how about being a climate skeptic at James Cook University, UEA, IK Met Office, BBC, etc.?

  16. Hey, what a coincidence! I was just reading about Jay Lehr. He was convicted of defrauding the EPA out of $100,000. Maybe you all should complain to him about where your tax money goes.

  17. A mention about Marx being responsible. My understanding was that Karl Marx was a economist, he was writing about the effect the German industrial revolution was having on society. His friend Engal was the man who put together the Communest manifesto, which in various forms is still circulating around the world.

    It had a test run in the old USSR and was found wanting.

    But its best test was in East Germany, especially as it was able to be compared to West Germany which was of course using the capitalist system.


    • Marx was Lord Palmerston’s boy, under David Urquhart of the British Museum.Marx praised Giamaria Ortes , the originator of “carrying capacity”, the theme of the Club of Rome zero growth which spawned the IPCC.

  18. Another more serious consequence of this utterly deplorable scaremongering by the MSM and others about climate change, is a now extremely serious problem with many young people in the UK and most likely other countries as well; is the problem of mental health issues and in particular the feeling of many of these affected youngsters that there will be no future for them as the earth will no longer be habitable by humans in a few years because of stupid claims about the climate!

    Is it not about time that those ‘experts’ who are fuelling this almost criminal paranoia among youngsters, should have some form of retribution placed on them?

    (please do not publish my company’s details)

    Thank you

  19. “We have scientists who disagree with that” – Pres. Trump

    Yes they disagree with man-made climate catastrophe:
    Richard Lindzen
    Judith Curry
    Sallie Baliunas
    Jo Nova
    John Christy
    Roy Spencer
    Patrick Michaels
    Roger Pielke Sr.
    Fred Singer
    Joe D’Aleo
    Joe Bastardi
    Patrick Moore
    Sherwood Idso
    Chris Essex
    Freeman Dyson
    Ivar Giaever
    William Happer
    Steve Koonin
    Peter Ridd
    Harrison Schmitt
    Ian Clark
    And 9,000 PhD’s signatories of Oregon Petition

  20. Calling the EPA a Frankensteinian bureaucratic weed, while criticizing environmental protectionists for scaremongering may make for attention-getting posts, but such charges serve as smokescreens to cover up problems threatening our air, land, and water. We need rational, data-based discussion about the future. If 10,000 scientists sign petitions challenging climate warming, and, because they lead with their ideology, rather than the facts, they turn out to be wrong, then what? Centuries ago, most people insisted the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Their claims didn’t cause the planet harm, just made them look like fools.

Comments are closed.