Stop the anti-climate science totalitarians

They want to upend and transform America, but demand No Debate on underlying “science”

Paul Driessen

Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. He should do it now.

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

No way! the climate alarmists rant. How dare you question our disaster claims? Our settled science?

No! How dare YOU use those claims to justify your agenda – and your continued efforts to bludgeon and silence us into submission – without letting anyone examine, much less debate, your supposed evidence?

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

For years, you Democrats, environmentalists, Deep State bureaucrats, government-grant-dependent scientists, news and social media have colluded to censor and silence manmade climate chaos skeptics, and stifle any debate. All of you have huge financial, reputational and power stakes in this.

Your Climate Industrial Complex is a $2-trillion-per-year global behemoth. Your Green New Deal would cost this nation up to $93 trillion by 2030 – sticking every US family with a $65,000 annual bill.

And still you insist that the science is settled, that there is no room for discussion, that we must act immediately to “save the planet” from climate and extreme weather disaster. Now you want to wrap up your kangaroo court proceedings – with our side given no opportunity to present our evidence, defend fossil fuels and carbon dioxide, examine your alleged evidence, or cross-examine your experts.

If your evidence is so solid and unimpeachable, you should be more than happy to lay it on the table, subject it to scrutiny, question our experts, and let us question yours – extensively and mercilessly.

After all, the future of our planet is at stake – or so you claim. The future of our country certainly is.

Your radical agenda and actions are un-American, totalitarian, anti-science, and contrary to our most fundamental principles of open, robust debate – on one of the most critical issues in US history.

A large majority of Americans believe our planet has warmed and is warming. No one denies that. And thank goodness, or we’d still be stuck in the Little Ice Age. But that’s not the issue. The issues are: Is any likely future warming going to be disastrous? And are humans and fossil fuels to blame?

You claim the answer is Yes. Again, where is your proof? If you have any actual evidence, lay it on the table. Show us exactly where the natural forces that have driven countless climate changes throughout history end – and where the human factors begin. Quantify them. Don’t give us computer models that simply reflect the assumptions that went into them. Present solid, Real World evidence. If you have any.

While you’re at it, you also need to prove that dismantling America’s energy and economic system will make one whit of difference in our climate and weather (assuming for the sake of argument that human carbon dioxide emissions now drive climate and weather) – when China, India and other countries are building thousands of coal and natural gas fueled power plants, and millions of cars and trucks.

Their emissions already dwarf ours. And they are not going to give up fossil fuels for decades, if ever.

Prove your GND energy system can actually power America, without destroying jobs, living standards, manufacturing, health, prosperity and environment. As I have said over, over and over, it cannot be done. Your alternatives are not workable, affordable, green, renewable, ethical, ecological or sustainable.

Here’s just a few of the Real World climate science facts that alarmists don’t want exposed or discussed.

Temperatures have risen by tenths or hundredths of a degree in recent years – less than the margin of error, and most of the “highest temperatures on record” have been in urban areas, where local manmade heat skews the data. We’re also experiencing record cold and snow in numerous locations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s why they hope the President Trump we elected to clean out the Deep State … show why manmade climate chaos claims are pseudo-science … and Make America Great Again for decades to come … will demonstrate his toughness and leadership right now, when we so need him to.

We need to tell Mr. Trump: Please stand up to these Climate Totalitarians who want to destroy our nation, in the name of saving the planet from climate disasters that exist only in computer models, Hollywood movies, and self-serving assertions by the Climate Industrial Complex. Alarmists have controlled the climate narrative thus far. Now we need to give other experts a chance to weigh in, loud and clear.

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

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
steve case
March 9, 2019 10:12 am

For those of you who are annoyed by undefined acronyms, GND energy system stands for Green New Deal

Reply to  steve case
March 9, 2019 10:23 am

In my less socially acceptable circles we’ve developed several variants. None repeatable. 😉

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
March 9, 2019 1:57 pm

The latest “T” done with my Cricut reads “Green No Deal”

Reply to  steve case
March 9, 2019 11:13 am

On it’s face, it’s the Gray New Deal trending Black with the backing of diverse special and peculiar interests, domestic and foreign.

Reply to  n.n
March 10, 2019 6:54 pm

UN Environment
Climate Initiatives Platform (CIP)

“We are still in” organization.

Starting year 2017
Coverage: North America

Includes: description and supporting partners

Related Initiatives:
United States Climate Alliance
America’s Pledge


If anyone is interested?

Lawrence Todd
Reply to  steve case
March 9, 2019 11:49 am

GND = green and dangerous

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  steve case
March 9, 2019 1:44 pm

I thought is was for Green NuDe eel.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
March 9, 2019 3:13 pm

Gains Not Delivered
Greed Not Deliverance
Green Neophyte Delusion

James Beaver
Reply to  steve case
March 9, 2019 3:55 pm

It’s the Green New Raw Deal.

Reply to  James Beaver
March 10, 2019 7:32 am

Don’t worry. This Green New Joke was never meant to be taken seriously. The Dem Party leadership know it’s a huge joke and it will never pass. It’s just a symbolic gesture meant to keep the radical enviros from jumping ship to the Green Party, whom they stole this plan from in the first place.

Reply to  steve case
March 10, 2019 7:47 am

I thought it was “Gonna Need Dough” 🙂

Reply to  steve case
March 11, 2019 7:34 am

The “Green Bad Dream”
brought to use by famous
climate science expert,
and bartender:
“Alexandria Occasionally Coherent”

Reply to  steve case
March 11, 2019 12:24 pm

UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya

UNEP Policy Brief for a Global Green New Deal

“Out of Crisis — Opportunity”, 16 February, 2009, 42 pages

“Opening Remarks, Policy Statement and Speech by Achim Steiner …”

P.6, “Global Green New Deal and the Green Economy Initiative”

This was a meeting in Nairobi, Kenya February, 2009.

Reply to  steve case
March 11, 2019 2:19 pm

American University International Law Review

Volume 25 / Issue 5, Article 1, 2010

By Achim Steiner

“Eleventh Annual Grotius Lecture Series: Focusing on the Good or the Bad: What Can International Environmental Law to Accelerate the Transition Towards a Green Economy?”, 30 + pages.

“The Global Green New Deal and The Green Economy”

If anyone is interested?

Also online.

Curious George
March 9, 2019 10:21 am

If your “science” is weak, declare it settled, no debate allowed. Mission accomplished.

Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2019 11:15 am

The Earth is flat. War is humanitarian. Your color is privileged. The baby… fetus is not viable. Wicked.

Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2019 11:19 am

Correction: War has been relabeled as humanitarian under the auspices of social justice.

Science is now a near, far, and Neverland frame of reference philosophy and practice.

March 9, 2019 10:21 am

The IPCC was tasked with finding man made climate change and unsurprisingly after decades and billions of dollars they found some. Isn’t it about time we look into finding all the sources of climate change and the portion therein that might be subject to our influence?

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
March 9, 2019 11:03 am

How can we apportion climate change due to the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas effect? There is not a single study of a controlled experiment showing, or measuring surface warming due to CO2 downwelling infrared radiation. There are over 15,000 published studies on climate modeling.

“Consensus” climate scientists are about as curious on how climate works as drunks on a spree.

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
March 9, 2019 12:10 pm

In fact, there’s evidence that they deliberately ignore inconvenient data.

The video The Fatal Flaw in Climate Change Science just came to my attention. The contention is that space weather has a measurable effect on terrestrial weather. Not only that, but the effect of space weather is blamed on CO2.

The video points out that CMIP6 includes data due to space weather and that, if you include that, the effects due to CO2 disappear. Due to demand from climate scientists, CMIP6 is now available without the space weather part. Quelle Surprise!

Gary Ashe
Reply to  commieBob
March 10, 2019 4:03 am

Yeah i put that up the other day bob.

With this one,

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
March 9, 2019 2:15 pm

Mark Pawelek

I agree with you 100%.

I usually express it thus: There has never been one single empirical, scientifically acceptable study which demonstrates atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

Yours is technically superior, but it is technical and the public does not understand what ‘downwelling infrared radiation’ is.

To combat alarmist propaganda with science, it’s necessary to express science in a memorable, repeatable form the layman understands.

I’m a layman, I know what I’m talking about.

Reply to  HotScot
March 10, 2019 7:16 am

I usually express it thus: There has never been one single empirical, scientifically acceptable study which demonstrates atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.

I usually express it thus: There has never been one single empirical, scientifically acceptable study which demonstrates gravity causes the planet to orbit the sun.

OTOH there has never been one single empirical, scientifically acceptable study which demonstrates that it doesn’t.

Whereas with climate, there are many studies demonstrating the inability of climate to be significantly affected by CO2.

‘Climate change’ and gravity are both models.

One allows accurate predictions to be made, the other does not.

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
March 9, 2019 2:33 pm

Mark wrote: “How can we apportion climate change due to the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas effect? There is not a single study of a controlled experiment showing, or measuring surface warming due to CO2 downwelling infrared radiation.”

You are correct – we can not apportion (or attribute) some fraction of recent warming to rising GHG’s. It is possible that chaotic fluctuation in climate added 50% to OR subtracted 50% from the warming forced by rising GHGs. However, if you look at the climate record from 100 centuries of the Holocene, you won’t find many (if any) clear examples of climate changing globally by as much as the 0.9 K change in the past half century.

The atmosphere isn’t the right place to perform experiments that will clearly illuminate the possibility that rising GHGs slow down the rate at which the planet radiatively cools to space: A significant change in CO2 requires decades and accurately measuring any small change over decades is challenging. Climate and weather are chaotic, with El Ninos causing more warming in 6 months that predicted for rising GHGs over a decade or two – followed by cooling over the next 6 months. And as the planet slowly warms, Planck feedback begins to negate the slowdown in radiative cooling caused by rising GHGs.

The right place to understand the role of GHGs in radiative cooling to space is in the laboratory, where their interactions with thermal IR have been carefully studied for more than a half-century. Those studies prove that rising GHGs will reduce the rate of radiative cooling to space. That physics is covered by the Schwarzschild equation. The law of conservation then demands that the planet warm until the radiative imbalance created by rising GHGs has been negated by rising temperature.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Frank
March 9, 2019 5:23 pm

” However, if you look at the climate record from 100 centuries of the Holocene, you won’t find many (if any) clear examples of climate changing globally by as much as the 0.9 K change in the past half century.”

No such climate records exist. You proxies, which are supposed to approximate some aspect of weather or climate, but they are of dubious value.

The main reason why you don’t see such a change, however, is because most of these proxy records don’t have the temporal resolution to see even century scale changes.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 9, 2019 5:24 pm

“You proxies” should be “You have proxies”

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 10, 2019 2:45 pm

Jeff: Deuterium and 18O proxies ice cores have annual temperature resolution (but the CO2 trapped in them does not, and lags). Ocean sediment cores from around the world (18O in CaCO3) typically have centennial resolution (or better). They informed us about ice ages (marine isotope stages) long before ice cores were drilled in Antarctica, and they can easily detect smaller swings in temperature. Changes in pollen, glacial termini, tree lines, and other proxies provide less quantitative evidence of climate change. These proxies tell us about the Younger Dryas, the 8.2 kya event, etc. Will scientists working a millennium from now be able to detect the warming that occurred in the last half-century from non-ice core proxies, or has this period been too short and involved too little change? I’m personally not convinced either way, but feel confident larger or longer events (big enough to significantly negate or enhance projected future climate change) would have been discovered.

A fairly rapid increase in both temperature and CO2 began about 50 years ago. What are the chances that these events are unrelated? That depends on how rare such events were in the past. Let’s hypothesize that such events occur by chance every 500 years. Doesn’t that imply only a 10% chance that these events are unrelated. With 200 such events during the Holocene, what are the chances none of them was big enough to be detected outside of Greenland???

A modest unforced warming ending in 1945 occurred in the previous half-century, so events of this size are meaningless. When the IPCC first met, late 20th-century warming was comparable to (mostly unforced) warming in the first half of the century. Today, recent warming is twice as big, twice as long, and much harder to attribute (totally) natural variability.

Respectfully, Frank

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 11, 2019 7:50 am

Chicago, Detroit and 95% of Canada
were covered by glaciers 20,000 years ago.

They melted, most likely between
20,000 and 10,000 years ago.

It may have been warmer then
( the Holocene Optimum )
than it is now.

Here are some examples of
climate proxy studies that
I summarized on my
climate science blog:
You say climate proxies are “of dubious value”.

They are certainly MUCH MORE VALUABLE,
than 60+ years of wild guesses of a coming
climate change catastrophe … that never shows up !

And that’s all “climate change” is —
junk science — consisting of
wild guess predictions,
stated with great confidence,
that are always wrong !
Do you deny the existence of those glaciers,
and the fact that they melted from natural
climate change, which would require a
significant rise in the global average temperature?

Do you deny that the rise in temperature,
that melted the glaciers, was unrelated to
man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels?

Or do you prefer junk science ?

Real science includes proxy studies,
because there were no real-time
temperature measurements before
the 1700’s.

Reply to  Frank
March 10, 2019 7:23 am

I’m looking at the GISP2 ice core data right now. From 9858BC to 9597BC, Greenland experienced a temp shift of +12C over 261 years, a 0.046C rise per YEAR. According to NASA, the temp anomaly has only gone up 1C over the last 118 years, a rise of 0.008C per year.

So much for the (if any) argument.

Reply to  AelfredRex
March 11, 2019 11:06 am

AelfredRex: You are correct that climate in Greenland was less stable at the beginning of the Holocene. Rapid sea level rise from the end of the last ice age didn’t end until about 7,000 years ago, so the change to a full interglacial climate wasn’t complete during the period you cite. I personally don’t look back a full 100 centuries when trying to estimate how much interglacial climate varies in the absence of anthropogenic forcing. Technically, the Holocene began almost 120 centuries ago. I’ve been misusing using the terms Holocene climate variability and and variability for the last 100 centuries when I actually should be using a modestly shorter period.

The orbital changes that are responsible for the switch between glacial and interglacial periods have also continued throughout the Holocene. They are apparently responsible for large local changes in climate – the desertification of the Sahara about five millennia ago, for example. However, these changes develop over several millennia and are usually not considered to be natural climate variability either. The subject is certainly complicated.

James Clarke
Reply to  Frank
March 10, 2019 8:09 am

“The right place to understand the role of GHGs in radiative cooling to space is in the laboratory…”

And those experiments indicate a warming of about 1 degree C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, all else being equal. Clearly, a 1 degree warming would not a crisis make. In fact, such a modest warming would have far more positive results than negative.

Experiments in the lab don’t tell us very much about climate change, in the same way that a precise test of your strength tells us anything about how well you can play golf. There are too may other variables that determine a good golf player, and there are many times more variables that determine climate.

Fortunately, we do have an experiment that has taken place on a global scale for millions of years, and the results are very robust! Earth has seen many levels of atmospheric CO2, ranging from only 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm and above, over it’s long history. The results of this experiment clearly show that life on Earth does very well when CO2 is higher, and begins to suffer when it is low. As far as temperatures are concerned, CO2 doesn’t seem to play a significant role. Even at its highest concentrations, the climate was hospitable for humans (even through we weren’t around then).

The computer models are modeling a virtual world that is clearly not like the one we live on. The computer models all generate something that has never been experienced in reality, and has no correlation to what is happening now.

Lab experiments tell us very little about the actual climate, but the actual climate, past and present, tells us loads about our climate models. The real world tells us the our climate models are crap.

Reply to  James Clarke
March 12, 2019 9:47 am

Frank wrote: “The right place to understand the role of GHGs in radiative cooling to space is in the laboratory…”

James replied: “And those experiments indicate a warming of about 1 degree C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, all else being equal. Clearly, a 1 degree warming would not a crisis make. In fact, such a modest warming would have far more positive results than negative.”

Frank replies: Laboratory experiments predict a reduction of radiative cooling to space from a doubling of CO2 of about 3.7 W/m2. Those experiments don’t tell us how much warming will be required for our planet to emit and reflect an additional 3.7 W/m2 of LWR and SWR, and restore radiative balance at the TOA. Your value of 1 degC is based on the assumption that the Earth behaves like a graybody with a temperature of 288 K and an emissivity of 0.615. For a graybody:

W = -eoT^4
dW/dT = -4eoT^3 = -3.3 W/m2/K
(-3.7 W/m2)/(-3.3 W/m2/K) = 1.1 K (warming needed to emit 3.7 more W/m2)

It is trivial to prove that the graybody model is incorrect for our our planet – that there are feedbacks besides the Planck feedback calculated above:

Due to the lower heat capacity of the Northern hemisphere, GMST rises and falls about 3.5 K seasonally, being highest during summer in the NH. (When temperature anomalies are taken to study climate change, these seasonal changes are eliminated.) CERES observes how much more LWR is emitted by the planet as it warms every year. Our planet emits only about 2.2 W/m2/K more LWR from both clear (WV+LR feedback) and cloudy skies as it warms with the seasons. Not 3.3 W/m2/K. The LWR change is highly linear with warming. (The seasonal change in SWR is partly lagged and not linear with temperature, making it difficult to interpret in terms of a feedback relevant to climate change.) (Figure 1)

The above paper shows that AOGCMs are incapable of reproducing the seasonal changes observed from space (except LWR feedback through clear skies). And their predictions are mutually inconsistent with each other. So there is no reason why we should trust the projections of AOGCMs (or simple graybody models). For me, this paper illustrates most clearly how our planet really does behave as it warms.

A more complete analysis includes changes in reflection of SWR. The planet’s radiative imbalance, Ri, is given by:

Ri = incoming SWR – outgoing LWR
Ri = (S/4)(1-a) – eoT^4

We need to know how this imbalance changes with surface temperature:

dRi/dTs = -(S/4)*(da/dTs) – 4eoT^3 – (oT^4)*(de/dTs)

These terms are SWR feedback, Planck feedback (-3.3 W/m2/K) and LWR feedback (about +1.1 W/m2/K for seasonal warming). Note, I have not assumed that emissivity is independent of temperature and applied the product rule when calculating the derivative. Water vapor is a GHG and probably rises with Ts, so there is every reason to expect de/dTs to be non-zero. The biggest unknown is SWR feedback (mostly from clouds). dRi/dTs is about 1 W/m2/K for ECS = 3.7 K (climate models), about 2 W/m2/K for ECS = 1.8 K (based on observations of warming and forcing, aka “energy balance models”), and 3.3 W/m2/K for ECS = 1.1 K (no feedbacks).

Dennis Laughton
Reply to  Frank
March 11, 2019 11:18 am

The nature of science is that it is never settled. All we can say with any authority is “This is what we know now”

Reply to  Dennis Laughton
March 12, 2019 11:53 am

Dennis: We can do a little better than say “This is what we know now”. For example, Newton determined that gravitational force between two masses = Gm1m2/r^2. Experiments demonstrated this equation was correct and determined the constant G to greater and greater precision. Several centuries later, Einstein came along with general relativity, a theory that proved to be more accurate under some extreme circumstances. However, all of the experiments showing that Newton’s equation was correct were still valid – for situations and within the uncertainty certain limits established by previous experiments. Within those limits and circumstances, both Newton and Einstein’s equations give the same answer. And when we have a quantum theory of gravity, that new theory, Newton’s and Einstein’s will make the essentially the same predictions in the same well-studied situations. Otherwise that new theory would have already been experimentally invalidated. Reliable experiments don’t become obsolete when the theories/rationals for those experiments change.

The 2 LoT was devised long before we knew matter was composed of moving, vibrating and rotating molecules with quantized energy levels. We have deduced that large numbers of molecules and photons following the laws of QM will behave according the 2LoT – even though the behavior of individual molecules and photons are not constrained by that law. (They follow the laws of QM.)

The theory that explains the interactions between thermal infrared and GHGs is called quantum mechanics. If quantum mechanics ever becomes obsolete, all of the laboratory experiments that carefully studied the absorption of thermal infrared by GHGs will presumably still be valid. That new theory is likely to also predict that a doubling of CO2 reduces radiative cooling to space by about 3.7 W/m2.

Now, it is true that our experiments are performed with equipment that has been designed based on other theories. Perhaps someday we will find that the whole foundation of physics is rotten to the core – that we have been living in “The Matrix” (movie), where reality is very different from what we perceive. That doesn’t seem likely. To my limited mind, string theory with nine or ten dimensions seems a bit like “The Matrix” and quantum mechanics and relativity probably seemed like “The Matrix” a century ago.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
March 10, 2019 9:38 am

IPCC (note: “climate change” already) was established on 12/6/1988 to assess the state of existing knowledge about climate change … including … the cause and effect relationship of human activities and climate. UN GA Res. 43/53. A decade later IPCC decided to modify its own charter to understanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE. Caps added, Principles Governing IPCC Work, 10/1/1998.

IPCC revealed the cause & effect it had discovered between man and climate, the needed proof, two fingerprints of man on climate. Atmospheric CO2 rises at the same rate as atmospheric oxygen is depleted, confirming that atmospheric CO2 is from combustion of fossil fuels. Second, because fossil fuels are isotopically lighter in carbon than is aCO2, global emissions of CO2 parallel the decrease in the isotopic weight of aCO2. IPCC showed no calculations but relied on a couple of charts picturing the “parallel trends”. AR4, p. 100; Fig. 2.3a & b, p. 138.

The “fingerprint” on the charts is that of the scientifically-challenged, unscrupulous climatologist who discovered he could make variables appear to parallel one another by plotting them on different ordinates, scaled and offset relative to one to manufacture the desired evidence. This process has the name “chart junk” and it is simply fraudulent.

No scientific evidence exists that man’s emissions have any effect on Earth’s climate. What’s missing from IPCC’s analysis is the real cause of aCO2 concentration. It is Henry’s Law of Solubility, yet to be discovered by IPCC after more than 30 years of research. Except when frozen over, the ocean regulates the concentration of aCO2. The cause is global temperature; the effect is changed aCO2, not the other way around. The notion that man is changing the climate by burning fossil fuels is bull-loney.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
March 10, 2019 10:11 am

IPCC (note: “climate change” already) was established on 12/6/1988 to assess the state of existing knowledge about climate change … including … the cause and effect relationship of human activities and climate. UN GA Res. 43/53. A decade later IPCC decided to modify its own charter to understanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE. Caps added, Principles Governing IPCC Work, 10/1/1998.

IPCC revealed the cause & effect it had discovered between man and climate, the needed proof, two fingerprints of man on climate. Atmospheric CO2 rises at the same rate as atmospheric oxygen is depleted, confirming that atmospheric CO2 is from combustion of fossil fuels. Second, because fossil fuels are isotopically lighter in carbon than is aCO2, global emissions of CO2 parallel the decrease in the isotopic weight of aCO2. IPCC showed no calculations but relied on a couple of charts picturing the “parallel trends”. AR4, p. 100; Fig. 2.3a & b, p. 138.

The “fingerprint” on the charts is that of the climatologist who discovered he could make variables appear to parallel one another by plotting them on different ordinates, scaled and offset relative to one to manufacture the desired evidence. This process has the name “chart junk” and it is simply not science.

No scientific evidence exists that man’s emissions have any effect on Earth’s climate. What’s missing from IPCC’s analysis is the real cause of aCO2 concentration. It is Henry’s Law of Solubility, yet to be discovered by IPCC after more than 30 years of research. Except when frozen over, the ocean regulates the concentration of aCO2. The cause is global temperature; the effect is changed aCO2, not the other way around.

March 9, 2019 10:22 am

…..So…..Without fossil fuels that can provide the energy for the power to drive our modern technological economy from where will the wealth spring that can then be distributed? Do you reckon that the only thing that will have to happen will be for The U. S. Federal Reserve and other central banks to magically conjure more of their magical fiat currency out of their magical holes in the air?
Money acts as a proxy for energy — No energy, no money.

Reply to  ThomasJK
March 9, 2019 10:36 am

No Energy, no America.
America without energy is Africa.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  Ron
March 9, 2019 5:43 pm

Well, that’ll stop Obama’s birth certificate being an issue.

March 9, 2019 10:27 am

A Feb. 27 article at American Thinker makes many of the same points. It has become obvious that America has been subverted by overt Marxists and covert Marxists disguised as postmodern ‘scholars’.

Since she (AOC) believes what journalists and others have taught her, she and others have come up with what can best be described as an abjectly ignorant Green New Deal that would absolutely destroy our economy. Russia would certainly be happy to have politicians destroy America. They would love to have people like Kerry, Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer, and Ocasio-Cortez in charge instead of Trump.

It occurs to me that Russia may actually have tried to tip the scales in The Donald’s favor. What a blunder. 🙂

Please Mr. President, get the ball rolling.

Reply to  commieBob
March 9, 2019 2:36 pm


I just don’t get it.

The western world participated in the cold war with a nuclear capable USSR with a political ideology opposed to ours.

In 1988 the Berelin wall fell, the USSR capitulated and all it’s satellite countries agreed by the west following WW2 were freed.

Russia then converted to a Capitalist society with a lot to learn. Just what the west wanted. We defeated communism in the biggest possible way, converted a nation to our way of thinking, then declared it an enemy.

We have surrounded it with military bases and nuclear weapons in Europe and declare it a technological menace which is using the internet to spy on us all.

Meanwhile, Russia has no ‘defensive ring’ surrounding any other western nation. It has problems with satellite regions like the Ukraine, but the moment it moves to a military solution, it’s condemned by the west who have bombed Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

It provisions numerous countries with armaments, but that’s such a profitable enterprise, the west does it as well.

And guess what, the west spies on Russia at least as much as they do us and we probably influence their elections as effectively as they do ours.

Seriously, I just don’t get it. What more do we want from the Russians? Everything they have?

Reply to  HotScot
March 9, 2019 4:10 pm

If you measure by GDP, Russia is about #12. If you measure GDP per capita, Russia is about #61. It still behaves as though it’s a world power. I have no clue.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  commieBob
March 9, 2019 4:28 pm

Power in this world is measured in megatons, not GDP

Mike McMillan
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 9, 2019 6:39 pm

Nukes are much overrated.

Reply to  HotScot
March 9, 2019 5:29 pm

It wasn’t us that decided that we were still in competition with Russia, it was Putin who decided that Russia was entitled to take back all the satellites that the Soviet Union lost.
Russia is no more “capitalist” than China is. It’s a kleptocracy run to enrich those who are in charge.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2019 5:38 pm

The United States has been in competition with Russia since 8/29/1949

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 9, 2019 6:00 pm

The United States is in competition with every other country.
Then again, this is also true for every other country.

I love the way you seem to believe this competition is one sided.

Reply to  HotScot
March 10, 2019 5:38 pm

Russians are a dysfunctional people with thousands of years of continuous subversion to rank totalitarionisn. Bolshevism was just one of many flavors of despotism that has ruled Russia forever. They simply do not believe in or support basic human rights that are the bulwark of the American Idea. They are and always have been enemies of the American Idea and way of life.

Russia has also been an expansionist and imperialistic always seeking to conquer their neighbors. Unless we and others resist, they will dominate us.

LOL in Oregon
March 9, 2019 10:33 am

China loves these people.
Once they get nuke on the moon, these folk will claim “it’s not my fault”.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  LOL in Oregon
March 9, 2019 11:08 am

Once they get nuke on the moon…
If you’re thinking in terms of nuclear weapons aimed at the earth – they’re not necessary. All that’s needed are some rocks – and a way to launch them. An electromagnetic rail-gun would do the job. A few guidance rockets for accuracy. The amount of energy released on impact at terminal velocity – enough to rival an atomic explosion. No, nuclear tipped weapons are not needed…..

March 9, 2019 10:37 am

No Energy, no America.
America without energy is Africa.

Tom Halla
March 9, 2019 10:38 am

The Green New Deal is a gift to the Republicans, as it reveals the greens as proponents of a fascist socialism designed by retarded schoolchildren.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 9, 2019 1:53 pm

“…a fascist socialism designed by retarded schoolchildren.”

That describes pretty much every government program since 1935. Same Socialism, Different Doomsday.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 9, 2019 8:26 pm

United Nations
Sustainable Development

“Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century”

#SDG Action 1619
Registered: 1 June 2005

Includes Partners list.

This is a UN Policy Network for Renewable Energy. And this kind of activity has been going on for a number of years. This is “Policy” making.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 10, 2019 1:00 pm

United Nations
Climate Initiatives Platform

“REN21 (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century)

Starting year 2005
Global organization

Spreadsheet has information on, and members of this organization.

This is a UN “Policy” network for renewable energy.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 10, 2019 10:22 pm

UN Sustainable Development

“Goal 13: “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts”

Article includes:
Climate Action Summit in California, September 2018

Remember the attendees at the California Climate Action Summit, September 2018?

Bob Johnston
March 9, 2019 10:41 am

How can we possibly know that the pH of the oceans has decreased from 8.2 to 8.1?

Reply to  Bob Johnston
March 9, 2019 11:20 am


Reply to  Bob Johnston
March 9, 2019 12:58 pm

In fact, it is known about pH measurements at one station (Hawaii), where over a period of 20 years a statistically averaged decrease in pH by 0.035 was recorded. By themselves, the results of statistical data processing do not inspire confidence: the figure in the original shows a large scatter of data; the values of the correlation coefficient and mean deviation are not given. However, much more important is the fact that with a relatively uniform distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere, the acidity of the ocean is significantly different in different places. The pH range is from 7.91 to 8.46: see table 3.1 at
In fact, the effect of atmospheric CO2 on the acidity of the ocean has not been proven scientifically, either as well as its influence on the heating of the Earth’s surface.

Reply to  aleks
March 9, 2019 3:41 pm

The Amazon River’s pH is 6.9 +/- .04. I would guess that outflow of water brings down the Atlantic’s pH over a significant area.

The 7.91 to 8.46 range “represent surface water (0 and 10 m) of the open ocean, i.e. excluding coastal, shelf, and enclosed seas, near-shore, and estuarine environments.” (from caption under table 3.1).

The total range in the oceans, including all waters, must cover a huge range of pH – at least from 6.9 to 8.46 – with currents, tides, salinity differences density), and waves mixing it all up in random fashion.

Reply to  aleks
March 9, 2019 6:25 pm

Aleks writes: ” The [ocean] pH range is from 7.91 to 8.46″

Ocean temperature ranges from -1.9 degC to 30+ degC. Measurement show that the average ocean surface temperature has risen about 0.6 K in the last half century. The fact that ocean temperature has a wide range doesn’t mean that we can’t measure a small change in its average surface temperature.

Likewise, that fact that surface ocean pH varies widely doesn’t mean that the average ocean surface pH hasn’t been changing with rising CO2 in the atmosphere. Unfortunate, pH electrodes aren’t as easy to use and stable as thermometers. We don’t have a long global record of pH measurements like we do for temperature and the limited record we do have certainly doesn’t prove that global ocean pH has changed. So what?

We do have plenty of laboratory experiments that tell us everything about the solubility of CO2 in water, the reaction to make H2CO3, it properties as a acid, and precipitation of CaCO3 (and MgCO3). We can calculate what happens to pH at equilibrium, and how that equilibrium changes with rising CO2. pH will go down (whether you characterize that process as “acidification” or “reduced basicity”).

The problem is that much of the surface of the ocean is supersaturated with CaCO3 – meaning that it hasn’t reached equilibrium. And the precipitation and dissolution of CaCO3 in living systems is not a equilibrium situation either.

Reply to  Bob Johnston
March 9, 2019 5:48 pm

Someone decided that that would be the result of CO2 increases and arbitrarily made it so. Since
accurate measuring and earlier records do not exist there is no way to prove they are not right.

Louis Hooffstetter
March 9, 2019 10:42 am

If you support the Presidential Committee on Climate Science contact the President and let him know:

Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 10:50 am

It would be more effective if folks like Paul Driessen were equally voluble about the genocidal- and psychopathic foreign policy of the USA.

1) It is beyond discussion that the election of Maduro in Venezuela was fair and just. You can argue whether it was wise, but it was certainly democratic. Neither Mr Driessen nor Mr Watts can argue about anything to do with fairness and justice if they support Bolton, Pompeo, Abrams and the rest of the nonsensical psychopaths seeking to gain control of Venezuelan oil.
2) It is beyond discussion that President Putin of Russia is far more popular with Russians than any US President has been with Americans, he is a far more professional economic manager thsn any Us President and his bang for his military rouble is far greater than any US President wasting over half a trillion on nonsensical military rubbish. Mr Driessen cannot argue about anything just and fair if he claims Putin is a danger to the world.
3) It is beyond discussion that Germany wishes to secure gas from Russia, not the US. It is beyond discussion that the US absolutely does not believe in Free Trade, it believes in bullying cartels, sanctions and generalised imperialistic claptrap. If Mr Driessen wishes to talk about fairness, he can talk about fairness over oil and gas trade in Europe.
4) It is beyond discussion that every claim about Saddam Hussein leading to Operation Shock N Awe was a lie. The reason for the war was Hussein starting to trade oil in Euros. Just like Gadaaffi wanting to have an African Union and dedollarise his oil trade. Free trade says both actions are acceptable. US genocides were decisive proof that the US is the world’s biggest opponent of Free Trade (for the numpties amongst you, Free Trade encompasses the freedom to choose the medium of exchange used to pay for freely agreed exchanges of goods/services).
5) It is beyond discussion that the Us meddles relentlessly in elections and democracy the world over and has done for over seventy years. Mr Driessen will be a coruscating opponent of Us coups the world over and display shame, contrition and absolute contempt for his Government’s behaviour since 1946. Well, he will be if he wants to base climate rhetoric on principles.
6) It is beyond discussion that the US is now a slave to Zionists, subjugating 300 million people to the nonsensical rubbish of a small minority. The interests of the Usa are utterly different to the interests of Israel and it is a global disgrace that AIPAC is not portrayed as 1000 times more damaging than Russia in manipulating US elections.

Etc etc etc.

Now clearly, if WUWT is now a subservient slave to the Republican party, AIPAC and Israel, I will be denounced for this.

The thing is, what I have described are far more dangerous matters than a bit of Green Corruption.

The problem is that you Americans cannot face up to what you have done and what the rest of the world thinks of you as a result. And I can tell you with certainty that a sizable majority of the earth no longer considers the US to lead, nor to be a saviour.

Nothing I have said has anything to do with economics, it has all been to do with legality, free trade, state sovereignty and democracy.

So do not waste your time calling me a socialist.

Call me a stickler for the rules, if you wish.

And someone who has absolute contempt for US Exceptionalism, a construct of absolute racism.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 11:04 am

A nice summary of most of the leftist tropes for the past thirty years. Before that, you probably really though the Soviet Union had unusually bad weather ever since the Revolution, which accounted for the famines and their being a food importer.

Reply to  Tom Halla
March 9, 2019 2:41 pm

The poor crop yields and subsequent famines (excepting those instituted by Stalin in calculated mass genocides) can be laid at the feet of Trofim Lysenko and his pseudo-scientific wacko theories of agriculture and and rejection of genetics. Before the 1917 Revolution, Russia was a net food exporter, after, people starved. It took years for the Soviet Union and Russia to escape the claws of this State imposed scientific dogma. Does this scenario sound familiar (echoes of Santayna in the background)….?

Tom Halla
Reply to  Buckeyebob
March 9, 2019 2:52 pm

Forced collectivization had quite a lot to do with the food situation, Lysenko aside. Killing off many of the better farmers as “kulaks” was meatheaded as well.

Ron Long
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 11:27 am

Rhys, get back on your meds before it’s too late.

Fritz Brohn
Reply to  Ron Long
March 9, 2019 3:36 pm

Now THAT is beyond discussion!

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 11:37 am

Rhys: Do I detect another resignation from the clime syndicate? It is thin gruel these days isn’t it. Re US policy on other things, unlike you EU folks, you’d be surprised that the entire spectrum of opinions exist in the USA. Conflating your shopping list with what you think climate sceptics think about other things is a bit telling of your “consenus”- mindedness. Think herding cats when you think of scepticism. I’ve gotten to the point where I’m wary of nearly everything I’m told.

Yeah the US is real bad, except when you need to be rescued from some totalitarian juggernaut.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 11:50 am

wow Rhys, what a great comment! For a minute I thought you were serious. You may have out done Brad Keyes. Beyond discussion – love it. Have you considered writing for The Onion?

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 12:04 pm

In other news, Rhys Jaggar has been diagnosed with dementia and will now retire from public life, we hope…

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 12:22 pm

You do realize that most of the rest of Venezuela’s neighboring Latin American nations have recognized Guaido’s provisional government, right? 11 for vs. 3 (supporting Maduro) on that count. That this isn’t just a US thing. Also most of the EU recognizes Guaido’s government.

The list of nations supporting Gaido and calling for the ouster of Maduro is up to around 50 nations so far.

It ain’t a US thang.

Reply to  Duane
March 9, 2019 5:40 pm

But, But, But, the Jews in the US control all those countries, it’s beyond discussion.
/extreme sarcasm

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 12:29 pm

I was wondering why the USSR had militarily and economically dominated the USA so thoroughly the last forty years. Wait the USA won the cold war. My mistake HA!

Curious George
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 12:30 pm

“It is beyond discussion that the election of Maduro in Venezuela was fair and just. ” Fifty governments disagree with you. Beyond discussion – and you are not a totalitarian?

William Astley
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 12:31 pm

In reply to the above thoughtless, clueless rant.

It is beyond discussion that … Venezuela … is in a death spiral.

It is difficult to imagine a better example, than Venezuela as to why socialism does not work.

Private companies have processes and rules (independent confidential whistle blower contacts) to stop people from stealing from the company and hiring their friends.

When the Government owns everything and controls everything, everything is politically correct. i.e. The people in power get the money and their political friends get the jobs.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 3:13 pm

Rhys seems nice.

Curious George
Reply to  Charles Rotter
March 10, 2019 10:48 am

It is beyond discussion that (s)he is not nice.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Charles Rotter
March 10, 2019 12:16 pm

Actually his name is Dennis. Here he is in an earlier performance.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 9, 2019 5:38 pm

Fascinating how the communist actually believes the lies of the other communists.
1) The only people who believe that the election of Maduro was fair, are you and your fellow travellers. No election in a communist country has ever been fair. (That’s assuming you don’t use the standard leftwing definition of fair, which is anything that causes us to win.)
2) So the Russian people, who are fed a constant stream of propaganda in favor of their current dictator, like their current dictator. And you actually find that surprising. As to Putin being a competent economic manager, the economic performance of Russia since he took over is pathetic. If they couldn’t sell gas to Europe, the GDP would drop to third world status. Since Trump took office, economic performance has soared.
3) It really does blow me away, how communists such as yourself actually believe that any word from the US is the equivalent to a nuclear missile. The US has done nothing beyond jawboning when it comes to Germany buying gas from Russia.
4) Every claim about Saddam has been proven, of course the communists can’t accept reality so they continue to insist that we believe every lie.
5) If it is beyond discussion that the US meddles in every election, please provide proof. Not whacked out conspiracy theories. Not claims that every result that isn’t 100% anti-US if proof of US action. Evidence. Proof. Data
6) The US is a slave to the Zionists. Not only are you and idiot, you are a bigot and a racist and any decent site should ban you.

(Mods, with his constant blaming of the Jews for all his problems, Rhys has gone beyond the pale.)

Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2019 7:11 pm

Not to mention he claims we want Venezuela oil. Like how we took Iraq’s oil. Same old bravo sierra, different leftard.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 10, 2019 12:15 am

When a term has a positive connotation such as Democracy does, Everyone claims to be Democratic

Communist East Germany was titled The German Democratic Republic
North Korea is officially titled the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Iran claims to practice a form of “Islamic Democracy”

Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood: The best of enemies?
Mustapha Zahrani, the head of the Institute for Political and International Studies which is the research centre of the Iranian Foreign Affairs Department, said: “The Muslim Brotherhood’s ideas do really matter for the founders of the Iranian Islamic Republic. We believe in the Islamic democracy and in a moderate Islam: as do organisations close to the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey and in Egypt.”

Obama: Anti-Anti-Terrorist
The con job actually gets worse than that. The Brotherhood has figured out that “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries is the quickest route to imposing sharia. So it has taken on the mantle of “democracy” champions. By backing the Brotherhood, Beltway progressives purport to promote a “democratic transformation” of the Muslim Middle East. The fact that it would be a transformation to an anti-democratic, discriminatory, liberty-crushing system is, for progressives, as irrelevant as the fact that Obama’s empowering of the monstrous Tehran regime destroys the democratic aspirations of pro-Western Iranians. The progressive conception of stability — cooperation with rogues — is no friend of freedom.

Muslim Brotherhood. First Democracy, Then Sharia.

Mao’s revolutionary technique comprised distinct revolutionary steps. I.E. First.. Democracy which I think Mao referred to as (new) Democracy… Then Socialism..

Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are two essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society.


Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 10, 2019 3:36 pm

Brilliant comment, Rhys Jagger, thank you for your clarity and honesty. You’ve riled up the ‘exceptional’ nation with the plain truth.

It’s strange that so many commentators here, astute and clear-sighted about climate science, descend into childish rage about historical and political reality.

You Americans really have to start looking at the world with some compassion, instead of the arrogance, ignorance, and belligerence that has led your country to terrorize and destroy numerous nations since WWII.

Not Chicken Little
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 10, 2019 3:50 pm

Rhys: “It is beyond discussion…”

Yep that’s what leftists always do – try to shut down any discussion, shut down anything that challenges their “ideas”…it’s their way or the highway. The truth, whatever it is, does not matter.

Your screed is a case study in rabid delusional leftism.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
March 10, 2019 6:16 pm

Why does anyone still bother to read his rants? Just a waste of time.

Linda Goodman
March 9, 2019 10:53 am

NWO totalitarians are committed to their Big Lie, so imho an EQUAL commitment is needed to EXPOSE their psychotic agenda. Their junk science should be aggressively mocked, not patiently challenged, which lends them the illusion of legitimacy and obscures their psychotic agenda. Most know damn well that carbon dioxide is not warming the planet, and the few ‘useful idiots’ who don’t should be ignored, not catered to. The truth is entirely on our side and we can’t afford to pussyfoot around; go for the jugular and EXPOSE them to the world before we lose everything.

David Borth
March 9, 2019 10:56 am

Great summary of the topic and the insanity of the alarmists.

Hocus Locus
March 9, 2019 11:31 am

We need to tell Mr. Trump: Please stand up to these Climate Totalitarians who want to destroy our nation, in the name of saving the planet from climate disasters that exist only in computer models, Hollywood movies, and self-serving assertions by the Climate Industrial Complex. Alarmists have controlled the climate narrative thus far. Now we need to give other experts a chance to weigh in, loud and clear.

Well spoken. I have tried, in my own way (April 2016 letter), to communicate with then-candidate Trump. My appeal was about Energy, but Energy and Climate are interwoven in our time. Some of the thoughts expressed in my letter have materialized as specific efforts by the Trump Administration. Whether it was read or not, at least we’re on the same page.

Policy for both Energy and Climate has been co-opted — steered by zealots, misanthropes and shallow thinkers. And hypocrites, for they preach austerity to others while their own human instinct spares no luxury for their own children and themselves. At least that part is correct, for we must all embrace the idea of an energy rich economy and pursue it. Energy to adjust pollution and climate to our liking and conscience, energy to ensure survival through harsh Winters and Ice Ages, and energy to feed and clothe all, not just a privileged few that these pseudo-utopians imagine are the ‘limits to growth’.

They’ll bring their unworkable ideas and dodgy science to the table, and it will fail. Then some future Stalin will step forward and promise to help them solve the problem. Imagine what is happening in Venezuela happening everywhere. Through war, country consolidation, selective reproduction and forced sterilization, the human race will be bred into a small imbecile tribe — the kind of people we would not want as neighbors, today.

It is no accident that the most vociferous climate alarmists are opposed to the idea of taming fire completely (nuclear energy). It is a cult of the willfully ignorant.

Nick Schroeder
March 9, 2019 11:32 am

The pH scale is logarithmic which means the numbers increase by powers of ten.

The very definition of pH is the negative exponent of the hydrogen ion concentration in a liquid.

For instance, a pH of 9 means a concentration of 10 ^-9 aka one part per billion. A pH of 8 is 10^-8 or 10 parts per billion. A change from pH 9 to pH 80 is a facto of 10 aka 1,000 percent!!!

The alleged change in ocean pH is from 8.2 to 8.1 aka 1 part per billion.

In the turmoil of ocean chemistry this is rounding error.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
March 9, 2019 10:33 pm

Sorry, definitionally wrong. You need to replace concentration with activity. There are significant differences for sea water? Search Debye-Huckel.
It is one way professional chemists can detect amateurs and recent science graduates. Geoff.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 10, 2019 7:11 pm


OK, D-H, check.

So how is that detection actually done?

By pulling irrelevant esoteric semantics out of one’s (deleted)?

Joel O'Bryan
March 9, 2019 12:15 pm

The beauty of the New Green Deal with all it’s in-your-face socialist demands is that it has removed the Trojan Horse wrapper from UN IPCC and US Democrat’s Climate Change agenda.
From a political stand-point, Republicans need to use that point.

The US public needs to be constantly reminded what the Democrat’s climate change agenda really means in terms of eliminating affordable fuel for their cars, boats, RVs. No trips to the ski slopes in winter, no family camping-vacation trips to the mountains, no boating on lakes to teach the kids to ski. An economic destruction of the economy that provides them their affordable fresh salads and veggies from Cal’s central valley and Mexico in the dead of winter. Make air or auto travel entirely unaffordable, eliminating most families’ ability, except the wealthiest, to go see family during the summer or winter holidays. The climate change agenda is simply a complete decimation of the middle class.

Families need to be asked how their monthly budgets would look if their electric bills doubled, their automobile gas bills tripled, the home winter heat fuel (oil, gas, propane) doubled or tripled, and milk, meat, and fresh produce prices at the grocery stores tripled?

Then ask them if those sacrifices would be worth a hypothesized 0.1 to 0.2 degree Celsius temperature difference in 80 years from the present. (Because there ain’t no way in Hell that China and India and Russia are going to comply with any meaningful CO2 emission targets.)

March 9, 2019 12:27 pm

The big problem, of course, with Trump appointing his own group of skeptics is that it will carry no weight with the persuadable people in the middle. So it will persuade nobody, and will be perceived (correctly) as just biased politicking from the right. Which it is. Dueling with the other biased politickers from the left.

The way to do this is with science, not politics.

It will take time, but given that the masses are not persuaded that massive restructuring of all human life on the planet is a good thing to do, we’ll have lots of time. And the more time goes on and reveals that the alarmism is false, the more likely the persuadables will decide that climate alarmism is BS.

Reply to  Duane
March 9, 2019 5:43 pm

You can’t use science to get out of a problem that wasn’t caused by science.
If we stick to science while the other side continues to maximize the propaganda. We will lose, and deservedly so.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2019 11:40 pm

now that’s irony.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 10, 2019 2:23 pm

I’m still waiting for you to do some science Steve.
So far all you’ve got is the output of broken models.

Reply to  Duane
March 9, 2019 6:40 pm

There is no science in the climate change fraud. The only time science appears is when it can be perverted to the cause of the warmists. Even when the science is directly against their claims, eg the ‘pause’, they claim that it proves they’re right.

Using the science won’t win this fight.

March 9, 2019 12:31 pm

I was wondering why the USSR had militarily and economically dominated the USA so thoroughly the last forty years. Wait the USA won the cold war. My mistake HA!

Reply to  Tommyboy
March 10, 2019 7:09 am

One question, what did the U.S. win?
I am not sure the collapse of the Soviet Union was even a loss for Russia.
And who gained or lost and what was gained or lost among the former Soviet satellite countries?

Albert H Brand
March 9, 2019 12:53 pm

A very interesting theory by John Kerr is that the earth’s temperature is never in equilibrium. Therefore the medieval warm period caused the little ice age which in turn caused the recent warming which will in turn overshoot and cause global cooling. This oscillation has a period of around 300 years. Of course these cycles are in addition to the one causing ice ages when insolation from the sun decreases substantially.

Curious George
Reply to  Albert H Brand
March 9, 2019 1:46 pm

Never in equilibrium? That’s not what Lord meant when He created it 4,567.89 years ago 🙂

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2019 6:57 pm

Not quite right, but close enough for government work.

March 9, 2019 1:47 pm

Remember: the objective is power and the pseudoscience is just an excuse, one even they probably don’t believe.

High Treason
March 9, 2019 1:56 pm

Green Nutcase Delusion.
Only someone totally brainwashed or a dung beetle that swallows every bit of BS served up to it should support such economic suicide.
REAL science can never be settled. If it is science, it isn’t settled. If it is settled, it isn’t science. Remember, the whole case for “action” is based on “the science.”
Scientific debate can never be final. Using such claims of the debate being over is a way of deflecting scrutiny. This is the tactic of liars. I do not recall any full, formal debate with evidence, not rhetoric and name-calling. It is actually quite hard to refute a claim that is all rubbish-you need rubbish to fight rubbish. As it is the warmists that are making the claims, it is up to them to show the evidence and then it can be scrutinised. Just claiming there is ample evidence or trotting out the old 97%….is a sure sign there is no evidence. We need untampered evidence. We need solid evidence that proves that human CO2 causes dangerous or potentially catastrophic climate outcomes.
Hopefully such proceedings are televised for the world to see. With the pressure kept on for actual evidence, eventually the cAGW narrative will collapse. The repercussions will hopefully be severe. Yes, why have people’s careers been destroyed to cover up what will turn out to have been flagrant lies??? Why have we built subsidised renewable energy monstrocities which are inefficient, unreliable and expensive??? Why have we been shaken down by the Paris treaty to give billions a year to “combat” a non-existent “problem” that was a fraud from day one???? Why was the narrative not just given no air time to let the lies fade away, but instead hyped up even more, knowing full well it was a pack of lies from day one????

The big, big question is this- will mainstream media continue plugging the fraudulent climate narrative once it is debunked???? If they do not have the debunking as front page news, it will show that mainstream media is complicit in disseminating lies and thus, people must get suspicious that media have been lying to us for a very long time. This should be getting several rows of question marks. Then, perhaps we should investigate why schools promote the propaganda and why teachers should not be made to immediately reeducate children that it was propaganda and they were force fed LIES. Personally, I think they should lose all their pension entitlements if they do not address the propaganda they have disseminated.
Bring on the first formal investigation.

March 9, 2019 2:14 pm

Temperatures are rising….. At least he got that right. Interesting the author quoted only the satellite data. If he looked at all the data he would not be able to make the same “minimal” argument.

Violent tornadoes…. If he followed the science he would know the jury is very much out on whether tornadoes will increase or decrease in a warming word.

Hurricanes…. again the IPCC does not say there will be more hurricanes. The suggestion is there will be more large ones.

A warmer Arctic?… I don’t care what the WP said in 1922. The arctic is undeniably warming.

Polar Bears…. again it depends who you listen to. If you believe Susan Crockford the populations are good and strong. But others are not so sure. “Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, one is in decline, two are increasing, seven are stable, and nine have insufficient data, as of 2017.[43]” That’ a whole lot of uncertainty

Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2019 4:58 pm

Reply to Simon or is that Simple Simon .
You have not disproved even one item that Paul Driessen wrote about in the above article.
Did you not comprehend that the land temperature data is inflated with the urban heat effect,and that the satellites are not showing the same warming .
All the warmist scientists have been telling all of us that cyclones and tornadoes will get stronger and deadlier .
Paul pointed out the what really has been happening.
Simon you don’ want to know what was happening in 1922 or what has happened in the many centuries before .
Just close your eyes and ears and believe the propaganda you have been taught .
As for the polar bears why do you think you would ever know more than Susan Crockford because some discredited scientists tried to say that polar bears were declining .
Susan Crockford would tell every one if she had concerns .
Get some knowledge and think before you come here spouting BS.

Reply to  Gwan
March 9, 2019 5:49 pm

Like most alarmists, Simon rejects all data that doesn’t confirm what he wants to believe. Or is paid to believe.

Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2019 5:48 pm

He used the satellite data for two very logical reasons.
1) Only the satellite data covers almost the entire earth. The earth based network covers less than 5%.
2) The earth based network has been cooked to the point where it is no longer recognizable.

The jury isn’t out on tornadoes. Tornadoes are caused by temperature differences. Since the poles will warm faster than the tropics (which will not increase in temperature much, if any) the temperature difference will go down. Over the last 50 years while temperatures were allegedly going up, the number and strength of tornadoes has been going down. The only place where tornadoes are getting worse is in the broken models.

As to the arctic, only the careful cherry picking of data shows the arctic warming. It’s been cooling most of the last 6 years.

Real scientists and residents who actually live in the area say that Polar Bear populations are healthy and growing. Of course you don’t care for data, not when it contradicts your models.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2019 5:58 pm

Satellites don’t measure surface temperatures, the earth based network does.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 9, 2019 6:03 pm

The satellites measure just above the surface.
The earth based network measures less than 5% of the earth’s surface, and most of those readings are polluted by micro and macro site issues to the point where actually constructing a temperature record from them is an exercise in futility.

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2019 6:11 pm

17 km above the surface is not “just above.”

Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2019 6:48 pm

Assuming you are right for once, then all you have done is prove we haven’t the foggiest clue what the temperature of the surface of the planet is, so why are we arguing about it?

Steven Mosher
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2019 10:54 pm

“The satellites measure just above the surface.
The earth based network measures less than 5% of the earth’s surface, and most of those readings are polluted by micro and macro site issues to the point where actually constructing a temperature record from them is an exercise in futility.”

you don’t need a huge number of samples, a few hundred will do. provable actually.

as for macro and micro issues.

We have 110 CRN stations. endorsed by WUWT

Compare all the other stations in the USA to these

tell us what you find

no…. difference

Reply to  MarkW
March 12, 2019 2:20 pm

Mosh writes: We have 110 CRN stations. endorsed by WUWT. Compare all the other stations in the USA to these tell us what you find …. no difference.

And, if I understand correctly*, some breakpoints with those in the records from traditional stations. Breakpoint that are hypothesized to arise from artifacts like station moves, equipment changes, changes in TOB, and that require correction by homogenization (or splitting the record into multiple parts in the case of BEST). Only with CRN, we know that none of these hypotheses are correct. Which implies that some fraction of the homogenization/splicing adjustments are probably incorrect.

* If I don’t understand correctly, I would be interested in being corrected.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 10, 2019 6:43 am

Foster and Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011


We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH).

“The lower-troposphere and near-surface temperatures are coupled strongly.” “The warming rates are now in even better agreement, and it remains the case that none of the differences are statistically significant.” “We also duplicated the analysis for the northern and southern hemispheres separately. For both hemispheres, as for the globe, all five data sets give comparable warming rates with no statistically significant differences.” “The agreement between the different data sets, even between surface and LT data, is excellent.”

J. Philip Peterson
Reply to  Fenlander
March 10, 2019 6:55 am

“Warming rates” are not the same as absolute temperature. Satellites cannot measure surface temperatures. The rate of change in both surface temps and the rate of change in satellite measurement(s) are comparable.

Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2019 7:16 pm

MarkW once again shows his arrogance is fuelled by his ignorance which again in turn is fuelled by his arrogance. If you think the arctic is cooling because of a short term dip of 6 years then you really need to go back to CC 101. As we speak the arctic is close to an all time record low maximum. Take a look.

“Real scientists and residents who actually live in the area say that Polar Bear populations are healthy and growing.”
It’s not that simple Mark. You don’t just look out the window and count the bears eating your garbage. There are many factors need to be considered if we really. And who are these real time scientists you quote (other than the Crockford who is a specialist in the evolutionary history of dogs)?

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Simon
March 10, 2019 6:00 am

Projecting much?

Reply to  Rainer Bensch
March 10, 2019 2:26 pm

When you only have one skill, maximize it.

Reply to  Simon
March 10, 2019 2:25 pm

Simon whines that 6 years isn’t long enough to set a long term trend.
Then he declares that a 30 year trend is long enough. Even though the last 6 years of that trend go in the opposite direction from what he wants.
The fact that the magical trend doesn’t extend past 30 years ago isn’t important.

But then, cherry picking is what other people do.

Reply to  Simon
March 10, 2019 5:52 pm

Simon Simple you are at it again spouting BS.
A study just released 6 hours ago 29,500 polar bears estimated up a lot despite low Arctic ice .
Read it for your self
.I am sure this study will be posted here soon .
I would be quite safe making a wager with you that we will see a large increase in Arctic ice cover before the Arctic Ocean ever becomes ice free .
Simon You have been misled by the constant propaganda that the activists and the compliant media keep churning out .
These same dire warnings were being delivered in 1989 “The oceans are rising and the low lying cities will all be flooded .The planet is heating up and runaway global warming will end in fire and fury in the next ten or twenty years .
Simon that was 30 years ago and nothing has changed .
Simon You have been duped .

Tom Abbott
March 9, 2019 2:45 pm

Trump is probably going to have to set up such a group because the Democrats are putting the issue front and center and Trump is going to be asked about the Green New Deal in detail one of these days, and it would be very convenience for him to be able to refer to a Presidential Commission’s report.

Before the investigation is finished, Trump can tell the reproters “We are waiting on their report.” And then he can proceed to make fun of windmills that only produce electricity when the wind blows.

I think we are in for some fun.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 9, 2019 10:21 pm

I was hoping they might get a few of the usual suspects on the Commission – Trenberth, Santer, drag Trofim Karl out of retirement. Of course Mann would refuse in a hailstorm of cowardly lies.

Hey, what a forum to get across your views on the subject (prior to their decimation by the grown-ups)..

March 9, 2019 3:13 pm

Two points, do not confuse today’s Russia with Communism.

Communism was dreamed up by Engel and was based on Karl Marks economical analysis of the 19th century German Industrial revolution. They were both Germans.

Second point, Its a unfortunate fact that world wide the IQ of persons is not
very high. Now there are certain racial groups who condemn IQ tests as a
“White Mans measures” and say other factors such as cultures should be
considered, but its the best we have as a means of measuring such things as intelligence .

Now any government wishing to explain things such as Weather come climate
has to go back to the old KISS. Keep it simple stupid.

So the US Government and those of other “Western World Countries” have
to make this whole matter of just what Weather and climate really is. There
are far too many complicated books and statements on this matter out there, in
fact just as we can now say that the Green Industry is close to being too big
to be allowed to fail, the writers on this subject, they too are now a big

Now while any mention of Dr Gobbles does not go down to well with certain
groups, he did create a very successful method of getting the Nazi philosophy out to the German people, and we need to use his way to combat the Green machine.

Its called “Propaganda” a word which is now a part of the English language. So combine what President Trump is doing, with the KISS principal.


Mickey Reno
Reply to  Michael
March 9, 2019 6:43 pm

I’m afraid that the way the Western governments explain climate change these days (except for Donald Trump, and a few notable exceptions), KISS stands for “keep it stupid, simple.”

James Heath
March 9, 2019 4:04 pm

Once upon a time there was an elf and a pixie, ‘oh forget it there’s enough fairy tales already out there.

March 9, 2019 4:16 pm
March 9, 2019 5:33 pm

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

The ocean acidification issue is not about oceans becoming acidic but about a drop in the pH within the oceanic alkaline range. We know from paleo data that even a small drop in pH can cause species extinctions. It is believed that the advent of modern mammals and the spread of mammals on land (out of the water) derive from an ocean acidification event in the PETM. Please see:

My difficulty with ocean acidification is twofold. First, that the source of the carbon is fossil fuel emissions is an assumption and a strange assumption since much much larger natural sources exist in the deep ocean. And in fact the data are inconsistent with that assumption. Pls see

My guess is that the ocean acidification fearology derives more from petm realities than from AGW realities.

March 9, 2019 5:41 pm

Rhys is so far left that he can see himself from behind.
He refers to the US as being uber capitalist.

March 9, 2019 11:14 pm
March 10, 2019 4:02 am

I’m seriously disturbed that people can doubt Settled Climate Science and related Environmental Dogma after the Holy Father has pronounced in favour of it. Don’t people know he is infallible!!
If one reads Laudato Si (I know, I know, it’s painful ) item 35 could have been written straight out of Dave Foreman’s playbook (Earth First!!.. Wildlands project!! )
We should Not have Any Border Wall as it may impede migration patterns for little critters and disturb the Eco-System!!
(I’m being facetious of course!! )


35. In assessing the environmental impact of any project, concern is usually shown for its effects on soil, water and air, yet few careful studies are made of its impact on biodiversity, as if the loss of species or animals and plant groups were of little importance. Highways, new plantations, the fencing-off of certain areas, the damming of water sources, and similar developments, crowd out natural habitats and, at times, break them up in such a way that animal populations can no longer migrate or roam freely. As a result, some species face extinction. Alternatives exist which at least lessen the impact of these projects, like the creation of biological corridors, but few countries demonstrate such concern and foresight. Frequently, when certain species are exploited commercially, little attention is paid to studying their reproductive patterns in order to prevent their depletion and the consequent imbalance of the ecosystem.

Guest Contributor: Dan Botkin

Be that as it may, the greatest importance of the pope’s document is that it makes clear once and for all that this issue is fundamentally a religious and an ideological one, not a scientific one. As I make clear in several of my books and many of my articles, the fundamental irony of environmental science is that it is premised on mythology, on the myth of the great balance of nature, which is not scientific and not scientifically correct

March 10, 2019 5:11 am

Funny how some people here claim to be sceptics but on most foreign policy matters they are incapable or unwilling to dig deeper. Some in this thread from the other side of the pond might be surprised to learn that many europeans are far more worried of constant US/NATO provocations, than Putin. You can complain about the takeover/secession of the Krim whatever you want but, as far as I know, nobody got hurt. Which can not be said of any of the long list of failed US/NATO missions. And: The NATO has Russia surrounded and not the other way.
Btw I am neither left nor a commie or an AGW alarmist, quite the opposite.

Reply to  Frank
March 10, 2019 6:57 am

Frank, earlier in this thread you said:

“However, if you look at the climate record from 100 centuries of the Holocene, you won’t find many (if any) clear examples of climate changing globally by as much as the 0.9 K change in the past half century.”

I’ve listened to Bill Nye say much the same thing when he suggested “it’s the rate of change that is unprecedented” on TVOntario’s “The Agenda”. The problem here is the ice core proxy data does not have the resolution required for a valid comparison with the instrumental record.

IMHO it appears you are supporting an alarmist position.

Reply to  M.W.Plia
March 10, 2019 12:52 pm

That was another Frank. Change my name now. Sorry for the confusion…

Reply to  M.W.Plia
March 10, 2019 2:28 pm

It also shows that he’s not going to let data dissuade him from the opinion he wants to have.

Reply to  Frank
March 10, 2019 2:27 pm

It really is fascinating how you assume that any time there is a difference of opinion, it’s always the other person who is wrong.

Reply to  Frank
March 12, 2019 12:47 pm

FrankM: No one (or few) got hurt when Hitler took control of the Rhineland. Nor Austria. Nor the Sudetenland. Without Great Britain’s guaranteed to Poland, there might have been few causalities when the Germans took Poland. But, even that wouldn’t have satisfied Hitler’s appetite.

How big is Putin’s appetite? He certainly want to re-unite or dominate all Russian speakers in the former USSR and Russian Empire. Putin got his start reclaiming Chechnya, which had only a small Russian minority and had been an autonomous area (not an official Republic) in the old USSR. Now Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. His next step is likely be an attempt to connect Crimea to Russia by land that is now part of southeastern Ukraine. He probably wants the Baltic Republics, which had been part of Russia since Peter the Great and which contain many Russian speakers.

Hitler’s motivations are exactly the same as Putin’s. After major defeats in WWI and the Cold War, both want to restore their national greatness and re-unite their people (German or Russian speakers) living outside their current boundaries.

Crossing internationally-recognized border – borders that Russia recognized with the Budapest Memorandum they signed in 1998 – is exactly how Hitler got his start and what Putin is doing today. The situation today is somewhat different today, but I find the parallels scary.

Yes, NATO ignored internationally-recognized borders and separated Kosovo from Serbia by force. That happened after a year of negotiations that attempted to protect the Kosovars from the genocide Serbs inflicted elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia a few year earlier. No NATO country annexed Kosovo. Putin planned his attack on Crimea the day his preferred Ukrainian leader, Yanukovich, lost the support of his allies and security forces in Kiev and fled for Russia. Without any attempt to negotiate a peaceful solution, Russian soldiers secretly took over Crimea within a week. A “referendum” and annexation was complete in less than a month.

Nor was any territory annexed in Iraq, Kuwait, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany or any other place on the long list of places US troops have fought or occupied in the past century.

Your “constant NATO/US provocations” are intended to demonstrate that Putin can’t walk into the Baltic States the same way he did in Crimea. And the Scandanavian and Baltic countries would tell you that they have been subject to numerous Russian provocations.

Reply to  Frank
March 12, 2019 2:11 pm

Frank: Interesting view points, and it is understandable that you take such positions. Here is how I see it, I might be wrong. Comparing your opponent with AH is very popular these days. There are simply no parallels.
Not even wikipedia talks of an annexation which would require force against the will of the public. This was clearly not the case as there was a vote (which no inspector could find any faults, as sure you would have heard that.). It could be called secession, incorporation or whatever.
Then Russia retreated 2009 from Chechnya and the state is independent since (Annexation, russian troops, sources?).
In the Ukraine there is a war fought by Nazis/Faschists with 3rd reich symbolism supported by the local and european governments against the russian population. Yanokovich got putsched out by force with lots of support from the US (Nuland 5B$). Yanokovich could not agree to cut trade with russia, and become a low cost ressource for the EU.
Let’s check where NATO has its troops, all along the russian border line. This makes MAD obsolete, which is dangerous.
In the end it’s all he said she said. Maybe we should work together more than think of each other as a bloodthirsty monster. That is in the end the only way to sustainable peace. But that’s probably an old fashioned view.
And to refresh your memory there was nothing to fight for in Iraq. And somebody should stand up for that first.

Reply to  FrankM
March 13, 2019 4:14 pm

FrankM: IMO, comparing Putin to Hitler is very UNpopular, because it suggests that the West should be opposing him more firmly No one is eager to do that. Hopefully, I stuck to facts in my earlier comment, because I have no clear idea of what those facts indicate we should do. Putin seems to use of military force unpredictably and opportunistically, and otherwise be content to slowly undermine his opponents. If you are sure Putin’s appetite and ambitions were satisfied by Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, Chechnya and perhaps Abkhazia and South Ossetia (20% of Georgia), then a tripwire of NATO troops on the border is an unnecessary hazard. Otherwise, a tripwire might be prudent.

As best I can tell, Chechnya is still controlled by Russia, The current Prime Minister, Ramzan Kadyrov, was chosen by Putin in 2007 and approved by the current local government. He is the son of a Chechen rebel who rejoined the Russian side during the second Chechen war. Russian military operations against Chechen rebels officially ended in 2009.

Yanukovich fled the Ukraine after 3 months of continuous and increasingly violent demonstrations in the Maidan, the central square Kiev. Yanukovich fled because the violence had cost him the support of the Ukrainian military, the security forces in Kiev, and much of his party. The day after he fled, the Parliament (Rada) UNANIMOUSLY declared the Presidency vacant, appointed a temporary leader, and scheduled elections. Since a significant number of representatives were missing that day, Yanukovich’s unanimous dismissal technically fell short of meeting the requirements of the constitution, but all the leaders and many members of Yanukovich’s party endorsed his dismissal.

The demonstrations began when, three days before signing, Yanukovich backed out of a trade deal with the EU that had been under negotiation for about five years. After two decades of misrule by pro-Western oligarchs from Kiev and pro-Russian oligarchs from Donets, many Ukrainians looked to the West and this agreement as their best hope for reducing corruption and increasing prosperity. The demonstrators were a diverse collection of groups totaling a half million on one occasion. A significant minority were nasty right-wing groups, including Neo-Nazis, but the demonstrators were supported (and fed) by the vast majority of people in Kiev. (Since many non-Russian speaking Ukrainians viewed the invading Germans as liberators in 1941, there is strong Neo-Nazi element in Ukrainian politics. Putin unfairly characterizes all anti-Russian sentiment as being Pro-Nazi.

Anyone who thinks Victoria Nuland (or John McCain) and American dollars could motivate about 100,000 demonstrators to occupy the Maidan for 3 months in winter and adversity needs to recognize that the web is polluted with a vast amount of false or misleading information from Russian internet trolls and RT. Think for yourself. Nuland was involved in negotiating a political agreement with the opposition that would restore the 2004 constitution (which granted the president less power), move up elections, but leave Yanukovich in power. The agreement was too late; too much blood had been spilled in the past few days. When the opposition political leaders read the agreement to the demonstrators, they were booed and rejected. Yanukovich fled that same night. Some of my detailed information is from a short ebook derived from coverage by the KyivPost newspaper.

As for working together, Bush infamously looked into Putin’s eyes and saw a good man, Obama and Clinton infamously came into office expecting to “reset” relations with Russia, and Trump mostly infamously of all admired Putin was looking to get along with him. The growing problem between Putin and the West isn’t a matter of both sides perceiving bloody-thirsty monsters. The fundamental disagreement is Putin’s stated desire to restore Russian national greatness by directly or indirectly controlling as many Russian speakers and related Slavs and as much of the old Russian empire and USSR as possible. The second fundamental disagreement arises because Putin has seen popular demonstrations – applauded or supported by the West – bring down his government, friendly governments and other autocrats like himself: Eastern Europe in 1989, Russia in 1917 and 1991, Kiev in 2006? and 2014, and the Arab Spring. Putin knows that such demonstrations threatened him in 2012? and are coming for him or his successors someday.

You might remember that Iraq had possessed AND USED WMD before the 1991 Gulf War. The cease-fire that ended that war required inspections, supervised destruction of WMD and compliance with UN resolutions on this subject. Saddam hid many of his WMD and then secretly destroyed some or all of them several years later, something inspectors only learned about when Saddam’s brother-in-law defected and told them where to look. Saddam stupidly believed (and later told us) that Iraq was safer if his enemies believed he still possessed or might possess WMD. He certainly retained the capacity to rebuild. The CIA and every other Western intelligence agency believed what Saddam wanted them to believe. Even opponents of the war like Colin Powell and the lead author of the National Intelligence Estimate submitted to Congress believed it (though Suskind’s book, “The Way of the World” asserts that a very high-level source reported no WMD about one month before the fighting started). Yes, Cheney and other neocons greatly exaggerated and over-publicized what was known about Iraqi WMD. Yes, with 20-20 hindsight, those WMD didn’t pose an imminent danger to the US; the only justification for war under international law. Nevertheless, half of the Democrats in Congress including (Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Schumer, Daschle, Feinstein, Edwards and Reid) voted to approve the use of force. Unlike today, they clearly remembered being the target of Flight 93 a year earlier. And you could even sympathize with the paranoid Cheney, who as Secretary of Defense in 1991, had failed to bomb any of Saddam’s WMD, because the CIA had no idea of the scope of his program or where it was located. Nor could he stop the launch of Scud missiles attacking Israel and Saudi Arabia, any one of which might have carried chemical or biological weapons.

March 10, 2019 9:16 am

Commies cry when planet thrives – since their pretext will then die
caused by engine they dismiss- source of economic bliss
MEOW , Commies cannot resist – underlies pretense of gifts
A draconian wish list – of the Despots in our mist –
Pinkish hue cannot hide gist

March 10, 2019 5:24 pm

Republicans who believe in climate change seek alternative to Green New Deal
“We have a voice in this, too,” Rep. Francis Rooney, R-Fla., said

%d bloggers like this: