An End… and a New Direction

Guest Editorial: Dr. Tim Ball

I thought about making this my last article on climate for this or any other website except my own. I planned the action some time ago, but it was the recent headline in the Telegraph that triggered this penultimate move. It said, “Climate change is a risk investors can’t ignore: Black Rock latest to sound the alarm on environment.”

Climate change is not a risk factor. Current climate and climate changes are normal and well within the pattern of change over history, certainly the last 10,000 years. The world believes otherwise, despite efforts by me and others to make the correct information available.

This means that after 50 years (1968-2019) of trying to educate the public about the weather, global warming, and climate change I achieved little or no change in understanding, attitude, or most importantly, policy on the world stage. My attempts to counter the massive deception that began as human-caused global warming (AGW) and later shifted to human-caused climate change, fell short. The deception is now what people accept, although they don’t necessarily believe. Because of that it is now the underlying reason for all policy on energy and environment that are the mainstay of these business-world views, indeed all views.

The only risk is not climate, but the one that governments created by the pseudoscience of climate science. All elements of society from energy to the environment and from industry to business and daily living are based on completely unnecessary and expensive limitations. The sad irony is that the climate change risk the investors face is a shift to colder weather when all governments are warning them to prepare for warmer conditions. This false basis for society thinking and planning is so pervasive that it is unlikely to change.

I am frustrated by the success of the deception, but I am angry about the waste of time, money, and opportunities lost. I think about the trillions wasted on a non-existent problem while real problems go wanting. For example, it is likely that enough money was wasted to provide clean water and adequate sewage for the entire world.

Apart from my overall failure, there was one failure restricted to the skeptics that might create different results. Skeptics are people who recognized the false science used to create the threat of human-caused global warming. It’s a group that slowly grew in numbers over the years but achieved little impact in the wider community. A major reason is the division of that community into approximately 15% who are competent and comfortable in science and 85% who are not. While I achieved some recognition in this group of skeptics, I failed to convince them that the wider public would never understand climatology. Worse, I failed to convince them that even if they could identify all the bad science, manipulation of data, creation of false and misleading reports, and deliberate exaggeration of stories to amplify fear that they wanted, it would do little to spread the truth and correct the story. I failed to convince the skeptics that without explanation of the MOTIVE, people would not listen to their critiques and warnings.

Recently, I received the charge through my web site that I was just “another conspiracy theorist.” Other attempts to marginalize included the term global warming skeptic or climate change denier. These were effectively what I call collective ad hominems, but the fall back dismissal was usually that you are a ‘conspiracy theorist.’

It is encouraging that a recent article appeared on the WUWT website that proposes a motive for the misuse of climate.

But the Left seeks far more. In fact, its goal is nothing less than total control of every aspect of human life, which we call “totalitarianism”, justified by fear of climate change.

The types of commentary that article will engender are predictable. They will indicate why people have not considered motive in the discussion to date. It is a classic Catch 22 you must provide a motive and marginalized or don’t provide one and get no traction with the wider public. It is critical to remember that you are asking people to believe that a small group of people managed to deceive the world into believing that a trace gas (0.04% of the total atmosphere) was changing the entire climate because of humans. In addition, that group convinced many others to participate in the deception. The public view is that deceiving so many is just not possible. The trouble is it was possible. To paraphrase Lincoln, they effectively fooled most of the people and marginalized the few not fooled.

After 50 years of combating hysteria over climate change, it is time to take a new direction. I say a new direction because the last 50 years attempted to educate the people to the lie that is human-caused global warming and effectively changed nothing. It especially did not change the unnecessary, ineffective, and massively expensive energy and environment policies that control everything in the world. When I see a car advertisement identifying its low CO2 output as a major selling feature, I know how badly I lost. Millions of more people now believe in AGW than when I began. Now, most governments believe and act on the AGW belief compared to the few when I started.

The first 10 years of the 50 involved dealing with the threats about the end of the world due to global cooling. The last 40 years dealt with the same threats about warming. In recent years, I used the quote from Lowell Ponte’s 1976 book The Cooling to illustrate how similar they were.

It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.

Change the seventh-word “cooling” to warming, and it applies to the entire 50 years. What happens going forward? What are governments preparing for? Is it appropriate? Are we victims of the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? Will governments prove once again that they always make a situation worse?

In the 1970s I knew that the cooling trend would end because it fit the overall pattern. This included the longer-term emergence from the nadir of the Little Ice Age circa 1680 and shorter cycles since. The world warmed from 1900 to 1940, cooled from 1940 to 1980, warmed from 1980 to 1998 and has cooled slightly from 1998 to the present.

Fortunately, the idiots we call leaders did nothing about the climate when cooling was the trend in the 1970s. Unfortunately, after the 1980s they began to succumb to the lies, misrepresentations, and pressure of the eco-bullies; those who used the environment and later climate for a political agenda. We needed the paradigm shift to environmentalism because it doesn’t make sense to soil our own nest. However, as with all such shifts, a few seized it for the power and financial rewards it provided. They were able to obtain power up to the UN General Assembly. They introduced the full environment and climate change plans at the Earth Summit conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 as Agenda 21.

The movement appeared to falter at the international level when even Greenpeace announced that Rio +20 was a failure. This was not a falter but exactly as Maurice Strong and the proponents of Agenda 21 planned. The entire objective of Agenda 21 is firmly ensconced in all societies through the municipal level of government.

The climate plan that isolated and demonized CO2 through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was designed and implemented at the national level through every weather office in nations throughout the world. This puts the idea and control of those countries almost completely in the hands of the deep state and beyond the control of international and national politicians. They then promote the concepts of the environmental and climate plans through the Climate Action Plan imposed at the Municipal level. This puts the original plan of thinking globally and acting locally into practice at the lowest political level. A conference in San Francisco in July 2018 explains the objective.

California Governor Jerry Brown has announced that a Global Climate Action summit will be held in San Francisco in September 2018, in a challenge to President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord.

Nearly 200 nations have signed the 2015 agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely thought to be responsible for rising temperatures, and Brown is one of a number of local and regional leaders working to build coalitions without Trump.

Here is what one mayor wrote about what occurred in San Francisco.

The Global Climate Action summit in San Francisco began on Wednesday. This year’s goal: “Take Ambition to the Next Level.”

What is that next level? As part of the We Are Still In, Mayors Climate Alliance, and other city climate-action efforts, many U.S cities are creating their first ever climate-action plans; others are rewriting theirs to meet more ambitious goals. The next level is ensuring that these multi-year plans integrate equity considerations or risk perpetuating an unjust life for millions of already marginalized Americans.

The original intention of the CO2 pseudoscience deception was purely political as this quote confirms. Note the word “equity.” It confirms quotes that were around before the deception reached the world stage. Former US Senator Timothy Wirth who went on to head the UN Climate Foundation said,

We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart said,

“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

What those quotes really mean is that we must use the climate for total political and economic control. If people continue to buy the false science story so much the better. For example, on April 13, 2019, US Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren promised,

Besides an executive order barring new fossil fuel leases on public lands on shore and offshore, Warren said Monday that she would work toward boosting U.S. electricity generation from renewable sources offshore or on public lands.

This is planned despite the failure of such actions everywhere they are applied.

The climate deception and the climate debate are complete and, though they will continue, they are irrelevant. The Paris Climate Agreement is almost dead. At the 2018 meeting of the Green Climate Fund, the Director resigned.

Howard Bamsey, an Australian diplomat who served as the GCF’s executive director since January 2017, resigned after a “difficult” meeting in which no new projects were approved, according to a statement released after the gathering in Songdo, South Korea.

There are many charges and warnings of corruption and misuse of funds against GCF. The institutions associated with climate change at the international and national level are collapsing. It creates an illusion that the skeptics are winning. It distracts from the fact that the entire focus quietly shifted to the municipal level and is infiltrating through the world. Much of the funding for the San Francisco meeting came from the World Bank.

I agree with the author who claims the misuse of climate was originally a left-wing agenda for control. However, I think the idea is so attractive because it is under the cloak of ‘saving the planet’ that it fits the platform of all politicians. They all want control. The only difference is in the degree and method. Of course, the ultimate irony is that the massive cost of this anti-CO2 system is only possible because of the one thing it demonizes, fossil fuels.

As a result of this train of events, I decided to stop trying to educate people about the global deception that is AGW. It is a firmly established false fact. Most skeptics know this because many are stunned by the strong hostile reaction they get when they state their position publicly. In many cases, they become ostracized in their family. The challenge now is to help people understand the differences between deceptively derived policies, and what is the best, most adaptive, most profitable, and most rewarding strategy for survival of the individual, business, or industry. In this age of the big lie, survival and success strategy is more important and challenging than ever. I want to help people bridge the gap between the false world of government and the real world. I will not achieve that through explaining the corrupted science but providing a credible motive.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Howard Dewhirst
April 20, 2019 3:56 pm

You are right Tim, many many people have asked me ‘Why would reputable scientists lie about the data? If what you claim is correct, why do they not see what you see? So the motive has to be adherence to Agenda 21 a la Maurice Strong. Not by everyone but by the ‘leaders’; there will be countless adherents that believe what they have been told and are genuinely frightened, and genuinely think we are the loonies; it is these footsoldiers we need to awaken; the cabal is beyond reach

R Shearer
Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
April 20, 2019 4:07 pm

The real loonies are becoming so obvious that even an elementary school child can see it.

David Blackall
Reply to  R Shearer
April 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Yes, thank you Doctor Ball, excellent. That’s how I feel. I like to think there is hope, and in that light the video at the link below starts with an excellent piece-to-camera, totally agreeable, by someone who has done some research to find what corporations are backing the 12 years to catastrophic climate drill – we see it in top gear at the moment at 3 big London climate rallies. This video notes how the rallies are extremely well oiled, while there are volunteers, there is money and power behind organizing, orchestrating. To do the same sort thing; protesting and activism in, say workers’ rights, it would be promptly shut down. The journo suggests the overriding plan is to channel superannuation (approaching 2 trillion in Australia) to the sustainable energy technological boom that they want to build to fight climate change. I have written about Trio Capital a USA owned corporation that stole $200 million of super money, over 3 years. They set it up for that purpose. A vehicle to siphon money out of super. The companies that these enterprising climate sustainable (whatever that is) projects hae superannuation invested to finance their heroic save the planet action, and they also take the profit and all sorts of other hedge fund, derivatives based deals, and they change the monetary laws to facilitate this. He then goes on to interview people These interviewees are well-meaning, well educated, but they are total believers, prepared to do anything to save the planet, including he suggests; giving up a large percentage of their super.​

Spot on. He gets it across better than I. He has hair, is younger and is an Englishman.

Reply to  David Blackall
April 21, 2019 5:14 am

The types of commentary that article will engender are predictable. They will indicate why people have not considered motive in the discussion to date.

The problem is there is not one set of motivations or one group or global conspiracy, there are many players each with their own interests and motivations. A conspiracy of intent, rather than a conspiracy.

Climatologists and universities are on the gravy train and don’t want it to slow down or stop.

Politicians use climate ‘policy’ to prop up the banks and manipulate the population.

Big business says “hey look up there : pollution” to prevent us noticing the real pollution is all around us not up in the sky.

U.N. sees it as a way to grasp more control over world governments and create a Green Slush Fund as the treasury for their new world order.

Many common folks have fallen for the wall to wall propaganda which has been going on for nearly two generations now, many truly believe they are doing the right thing.

Part of the problem of explaining motivations behind the climate fraud is that it is so diverse. There is not quick clear answer.

Reply to  Greg
April 21, 2019 6:48 am

The motive can ultimately be reduced to these two, intimately linked, objectives:

1) a global tax on the air we breathe.
2) a global currency for collection of said tax and attendant monitoring of all monetary transactions.

Together, this totalitarian monetary system will assure complete control over human society, down each and every person (who is not part of the control mechanism) and down to the penny that each and every person spends, including how and how fast, negative interest rates (amid the removal from physical cash) assuring that nothing is saved (“hoarded”) and is instead spent (“invested”) with all deliberate speed.

This will not end well, of course, and will instead result in global socioeconomic collapse and political disintegration so massive that it will be a wonder if humanity survives it.

Happy Easter.

Reply to  Greg
April 21, 2019 4:38 pm

For most of my career I was a conservationist though often labeled an environmentalists by the media. I served on the board of a prominent chapter of a prominent environmental group. In the early to mid-1980s, a group, organized team of far left socialists showed up out of the blue. Their leader took me to lunch at a fancy restaurant and picked up the tab. He was a devout radical socialist and his group (which I never could determine) had convinced him that environmentalists could be a great recruiting ground for people and money. Socialists and environmentalist should be in partnership. If they only had a cause that “appealed” to everyone. They saw the “air pollution” causing global warming as that rallying cause; the cause that would bring the socioeconomic left with environmentalists. The environmentalists were good for a place to recruit people but also tap into donations. That was only one experience of several I had about the same time working with other groups.

Let’s be clear socialists are well organized, well funded, and their leaders want power it is no conspiracy it just a fact of life. We made the really bad assumption that some how when the USSR was dismantled that socialism/ communism, and marxism had somehow disappeared as well. The organized socialists’ goal is to take down capitalism world-wide starting with the USA. They want to be in control of the richest, most powerful country in the world. The Left were already preaching that we are all racists, bigots and greedy, etc but it wasn’t getting the job done fast enough, so for them All Hail Climate Change was the answer. And as we have seen they have blamed everything bad in the world on the USA and climate change.

Reply to  David Blackall
April 21, 2019 5:43 am

Wow, that video gives an idea what we are up against.

I loved the guy who is convinced that there are reptilians aliens wandering around on Earth, yet is still more worried about climate change than anything else.

Doesn’t he realise that global warming is CAUSED by the reptilians !?? They need a planet like the Earth was 100 millions years ago. Much warmer and higher levels of CO2.

/sarc … just in case 😉

Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
April 20, 2019 7:40 pm

Many prominent “climate” scientists do, in fact, lie about the data. This was revealed in the ClimateGate emails. They cherry-pick and misrepresent. Others are just really bad at statistics. The majority though are deluded into thinking that climate models can predict future temperature trends. Every dire prediction about future climate is derived entirely from computer models. Measured temperature trends and sea level rise show nothing dire or even worrisome.

When you encounter someone doomsaying about climate, test his knowledge. Ask him how much the global average temperature has risen in the last hundred years (1° C). How much in the last 20 years? (Almost nothing, warming appears to be slowing, contrary to predictions.) How much has sea level risen? (About 7 inches, and also appears to be slowing). Then ask what the big deal is.

Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
April 20, 2019 8:59 pm

Regarding the motives of the radical greens, see my recently-published article:

9. Conclusion

The evidence strongly supports my hypothesis that “Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.

The number of deaths and shattered lives caused by radical-green activism since ~1970 rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century – Stalin, Hitler and Mao – they advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policies and are indifferent to the resulting environmental damage and human suffering.

April 22, 2019 3:35 am

Thank you Tim for all your good work.

April 24, 2019 2:21 am

(Reassessing environmentalism’s fateful turn from science to advocacy)
By Roger Meiners et al — September 21, 2012

“Carson made little effort to provide a balanced perspective and consistently ignored key evidence that would have contradicted her work. Thus, while the book provided a range of notable ideas, a number of Carson’s major arguments rested on what can only be described as deliberate ignorance.”
– Roger Meiners, et. al (cover insert)

Widely credited with launching the modern environmental movement when published 50 years ago, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring has had a profound impact on our society. While Carson was not the first to write about the dangers of pesticides or to sound environmental alarms, her writing style and ability to reach out to a broad audience allowed her to capture and retain the attention of the public.

Yet this iconic book, hardly scrutinized over the decades, substituted sensationalism for fact and apocalyptic pronouncements for genuine knowledge.

Our just released 11-author study, Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson, reexamines Carson’s historical context and science, as well as the policy consequences of Silent Spring‘s core ideas. We assembled scholars from different disciplines and asked them to evaluate Carson’s work given the state of knowledge at the time she was writing. What information was available that she ignored? Where did she deviate from accepted science of the day?

Our findings are unsettling. Carson made little effort to provide a balanced perspective and consistently ignored key evidence that would have contradicted her work. Thus, while the book provided a range of notable ideas, a number of Carson’s major arguments rested on what can only be described as deliberate ignorance.

Despite her reputation as a careful science- and fact-based writer, Carson produced a best-seller full of significant errors and sins of omission. Three areas are particularly noteworthy:

· Carson vilified the use of DDT and other pest controls in agriculture but ignored their role in saving millions of lives worldwide from malaria, typhus, dysentery, among other diseases. Millions of deaths, and much greater human suffering, ultimately resulted from pesticide bans as part of disease-eradication campaigns. Carson knew of the beneficial effects of DDT, but never discussed it; her story was all negative.

· Far from being on the verge of collapse, American bird populations were, by and large, increasing at the time of Silent Spring’s publication. Although Carson was active in the Audubon Society, she ignored Audubon’s annual bird count, which had long been the best single source on bird population. Instead she relied on anecdotes claiming bird population was collapsing. It is inconceivable that Carson did not know about the annual bird count–some of which occurred in the locations she asserted were in collapse.

· Cancer rates, exaggerated in the book, were increasing largely because far fewer people were dying from other diseases. Further, once statistical adjustments are made for population age and tobacco use, the apparent rise in cancer rates that so alarmed Silent Spring readers disappeared. Although writing at a time when scientists had come to agree that tobacco was a major cause of lung cancer, Carson ignored tobacco and relied on peculiar theories about its origins. She specifically ignored Public Health Service data on this point.

Silent Spring presented nature as a benign happy place that was “in balance.” Man was guilty of upsetting the balance and causing environmental catastrophes. As shown in the chapter on that issue, nature is far more nuanced and resilient than Carson understood. Her view that “natural” pests, such as wasps, could be used to control other bugs that were harmful in crop production, was not only short of the mark for agriculture, but overly optimistic about how benign such “natural” pests can be.

Carson’s “you can’t be too safe” standard is seen today in the “precautionary principle” that helps to retard the adoption of superior technology that would benefit people and the environment. Her simplified view of risk appears to have impacted the drafting of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act that set impossible standards in some areas not remotely related to human health or technical feasibility.

An intellectual, and public policy reconsideration, of Carson’s 1962 Silent Spring is long overdue.



ROGER MEINERS is the Goolsby Distinguished Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Texas at Arlington and a senior fellow at the Property and Environmental Research Center in Bozeman, Montana.

PIERRE DESROCHERS is associate professor of geography at the University of Toronto. His main research areas include technical innovation, business-environmental interactions, economic development, and energy policy and food policy.

ANDREW MORRISS is D. Paul Jones, Jr. & Charlene A. Jones Chairholder in Law and Professor of Business at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, and is a senior fellow at the Property and Environmental Research Center in Bozeman, Montana. He has authored or coauthored more than 50 book chapters, scholarly articles, and books.

Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
April 21, 2019 8:28 am

Dr. Ball
Please continue writing as you feel motivated. Eventually someone is going to point to your body of work and say; Gee this guy was right.

Yes, you’re tilting at windmills (ha ha). If you can’t explain to someone that there are only 2 sexes, you’ll never counter climate claims. However, I see some cracks appearing. Nothing solid is happening yet but people are starting to talk skeptically about climate, economy, imperial wars Topics that were totally off limits even 5 years ago. Thanks for being a sane voice in the wilderness.

C Earl Jantzi
Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
April 23, 2019 4:54 pm

Good article Tim! Here are the real explanations for this SCAM. You are right they want YOUR MONEY and control of YOUR life.

At a news conference [22Jan2015] in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework be adopted Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to DESTROY CAPITALISM. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said . Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will at change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors DOTcom/ibd-editorials/021015the Paris climate

IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” “This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, anymore.” http://www.nzzDOTch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

The Buffett Rule
The billionaire was even more explicit about his goal of reducing his company’s tax payments. “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” he said. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
Think about that one. Mr. Buffett says it makes no economic sense to build wind farms without a tax credit, which he gladly uses to reduce his company’s tax payments to the Treasury. So political favors for the wind industry induce a leading U.S. company to misallocate its scarce investment dollars for an uneconomic purpose. Berkshire and its billionaire shareholder get a tax break and the feds get less revenue, which must be made up by raising tax rates on millions of other Americans who are much less well-heeled than Mr. Buffett.
This is precisely the kind of tax favoritism for the wealthy that Mr. Romney’s tax reform would have reduced, and that other tax reformers want to stop. Too bad Mr. Buffett didn’t share this rule with voters in 2012.
From the WSJ

Poland Bans Wind Turbines in 17 years
Now we have the nation of Poland examining the health damages of Wind turbines. They have discovered that the low frequency noise given off by wind turbines, affects cellular development and mimics heart problems. They are going to force REMOVAL of ALL wind turbines in 17 years! Check this out, and read to the end and check the comments of Sommer, and watch the youtube video for a real education in the subject.

F. Ross
April 20, 2019 4:01 pm

Excellent post Dr. Ball.

I could not agree more with your analysis; must admit I see no viable way out of this political hysteria.

Reply to  F. Ross
April 20, 2019 5:16 pm

As the AMO turns over, the hysteria will grow colder and colder. Eschatology has been a concept in the human race forever as near as I can figure. It is well to remember given that Easter is tomorrow that Paul ran around saying that the end would be within his lifetime. I am sure somebody before him said the same thing. Lots of people since him have said it. There was a real Y1K thing a thousand years ago for instance. Millerite sects are with us today too. mountain or not. Reality has never been a big runner with these people. Somebody someplace will invent a new cargo cult and history will repeat itself.

Trying to educate people about this topic is a losing proposition I am afraid. When 40% of college graduates on answer 2 or less questions correctly on the test on page 15 of Trying to get them to think in adiabatic lapse rates is a enterprise in futility. Sadly, these people vote.

Reply to  shrnfr
April 20, 2019 9:01 pm

Agree, there will always be another hobgoblin waiting around the corner when this one is seen off, there’s no ‘win’ in that process, it’s just management of the reining delusion of the day that’s being used by those who can to control those who accept the most popular delusions of the day. Education is mostly the injection of popular delusions, rather that the tools to detect and negate them.

The ‘motives’ and delusions are perpetually evolving.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  shrnfr
April 20, 2019 11:22 pm

…Paul ran around saying that the end would be within his lifetime.

Hmm. Not sure where this comes from. It’s tempting to respond, but that would take us well off topic. Even so, since Paul is mentioned, I will venture to commend his attitude as expressed in a letter to Christians in Philippi:

…forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead… I press on toward the goal…. NIV

If Dr. Ball sees a need to make a radical change from past strategies and press on in a different direction, more power to him, and appreciation for his efforts to this point.

Reply to  F. Ross
April 20, 2019 7:09 pm

F. Ross – How about this for a way out: Give the alarmists exactly what they want – less atmospheric CO2. Find a reputable scientist to publish a paper that proposes a theoretically feasible (but not necessarily practical), low cost way of turning very large amounts of CO2 into something useful, like a fuel, as a way of lowering CO2. Then point out that the manufacture of this wonderful new source of fuel will have to be carefully managed, because actually lowering atmospheric CO2 below about 200 parts per million would be catastrophic, because all plants would then die. Then watch the alarmists tie themselves in logical knots trying to resolve the contradiction of either denying the world a low cost, almost infinite source of energy, or seeing their long-claimed aim of lowering CO2 being achieved at the expense of the end of life on earth. This is what politicians call a policy ‘wedge’. Worth a try?

April 20, 2019 4:03 pm



Statists and collectivists.

Their tyrannical intentions have been known for decades. But with a populace that embraces the all-encompassing State as their “savior” and guardian, the truth has been ignored and evaded for most of my life.

Since these sheep have never really cared about freedom and rights and justice and truth (after decades of relativism and its know-nothing cousins), it is hard to convince them that “Earth Day” is a scam that will cost them dearly.

As the saying goes, too many folks “know” what ain’t so…

April 20, 2019 4:05 pm

Tim I’m sorry but you are so wrong.

We have won.

Why is the Paris Agreement such a shambles? Because Macron can’t even convince his own people of its value.

Why have carbon trading schemes around the world failed? Because nations put self interest before climate “virtue”, and issued too many carbon credits to avoid electoral backlash.

Why did Trump win? Because millions of Americans don’t think climate change is the most important issue.

Why is even Germany pulling back from climate action? Because they no longer see the point.

Groups like Blackrock are happy to mouth the words, but how many of their executives avoid air travel and family holidays for the sake of the planet?

Why are state politicians pushing back against carbon pricing, even in Canada?

Its not the kind of victory we maybe hoped for, at least not yet, but maintaining the status quo, the utter and ongoing failure of climate politicians to engineer the kind of societal transformation they wanted, is well worth the effort.

Bruce Ranta
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 20, 2019 4:24 pm

We are not winning in Canada. We might yet win, but there is no guarantee. The media is onside and there is not a single political party that has taken the tact that CO2 is not an evil that must be reduced. It’s just ridiculous, especially considering Canada is the coldest country in the world.

Reply to  Bruce Ranta
April 20, 2019 6:36 pm

Things have turned around a bit the last 2 years. USA is headed by a sorta skeptic. Brazil’s new president is a skeptic. India and China are not stupid. The hoax will eventually fail, because the most populous nations are disregarding the alarmism. Belgium can go carbon neutral and it won’t matter. They, like other “green” countries, will export their manufacturing to Asia, which will focus on making money. After that Africa will worry about prosperity and they will disregard alarmism. In a generation or two, about 10% of world (at most) will have gone carbon neutral and the other 90% will have focused on prosperity. At some point, the newly impoverished 10% will give up on the hoax.

Reply to  Bruce Ranta
April 20, 2019 9:28 pm

All Human Rights stuff has also been successfully gutted from the IPCC rules leaving country sovereignty over the issue. Later this year should see the death of the concept of historic reparations which will leave the lefties and green blob crying.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 20, 2019 4:24 pm

Yes Eric, I believe you hit the nail on the head : We won! We are watching the last death-throes of all the idiocy now they are sending silly kids out to glue themselves to buildings. Very soon some little boy will appear shouting, “But the Emperor has nothing on!”. And I would not be surprised if it possibly will be the IPCC themselves – who will finally begin to moderate their stance just enough to begin a real awakening.

Reply to  AndyE
April 21, 2019 11:54 am

Skeptics can’t fail to win.

Time and nature itself will show the world that climate alarmism is false – and when people realise they have been made fools of, then what?

I have always advocated that the problem isn’t the climate (activists) – it is the MEDIA. Without their total and complete capitulation the whole concept would fall flat at the first mainstream article disputing the so-called facts.

Reply to  Dave_G
April 21, 2019 7:55 pm

Yes, but it is only our western media who (almost) all are on that bandwagon. The Russian, Indian, Chinese, African, etc. are not. You will find no alarmism there. So you are right : time and truth will eventually prove us right – and all us westerners will have eggs on our faces. Serves us right!

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 20, 2019 4:29 pm

We cannot sat that in Canada until we defeat Trudeau and McKenna in the election this fall.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 20, 2019 4:35 pm

I think you’re right.

Most young people I know are climate skeptics. Despite being force fed the ‘Inconvenient Truth’ movie every year in school, they still reject it all. Amazing.

None of them have any interest in becoming environmentalists. It’s a generation that is walking away.

Modern environmentalism has done tremendous damage to the environmental movement.

Howard Dewhirst
Reply to  Klem
April 20, 2019 4:42 pm

Then who are these children and young people shutting down London etc?

Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
April 20, 2019 5:17 pm


Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
April 20, 2019 6:01 pm

I really doesn’t take that many to make a big stink.
Most people stayed home.

Reply to  Howard Dewhirst
April 20, 2019 9:39 pm

A thousand people is hardly a mass movement. You could get that many just by offering a free coffee.

Gerry, England
Reply to  LdB
April 21, 2019 4:21 am

It also helps that your police are social workers in uniforms.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 20, 2019 5:04 pm

Lol. “Its just a flesh wound. Come back, I’ll bite your legs off”

Reply to  Loydo
April 20, 2019 5:18 pm

And with that, good knight to all.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 20, 2019 5:59 pm

“We have won.”

The SJW left have infested large organizations all across the West. We may have a provincial government opposed to a Carbon Tax, but the city government is still pushing ‘sustainable development’ and all that crap (aka bus lanes, bike lanes, and refusing to let people build the kind of suburban houses they want to live in, rather than living in the ‘diverse and inclusive’ downtown with the crazies, junkies and bums).

Boeing can no longer build airliners that don’t crash.

Intel can no longer build CPUs. At least, it can’t build the new processes to build them, where it used to leave the rest of the world by several years.

The Catholic church is now neither Catholic nor Christian.

The best government schools are merely dysfunctional, while the rest are Marxist indoctrination camps.

Hollywood is now all about ‘diversity’ and only very rarely about telling good stories.

Just about every major institution is heading toward failure. We may have temporarily stopped the Global Warming nonsense at a national level, but that doesn’t help when society collapses beneath us.

We’re a long way from winning, if that means saving the best parts of the West.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 20, 2019 6:18 pm

We have won nothing.
These people are powerful at imposing their agenda against anybody’s will.
After Climategate we also won…
They will stop at nothing to do their deed… while trying to steal Eurasia’s huge resources.
No one asks NATO to use solar bombers and wind powered tanks…
Until Greta does just that -and she won’t since she serves them-…

Reply to  TomRude
April 20, 2019 9:35 pm

The World emissions went up 2.6% last year it will go up 3% this year.

What is happening in reality trumps what anyone writes or thinks … reality does not care for opnions or take sides.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 21, 2019 2:31 am

Nice thoughts, but wrong.
The world has a ‘savings’ crisis. In 2008 when Central Banks initiated QE, it created trillions of dollars which eventually has to go somewhere.
The ‘disruptors’ have seen the opportunity of riding on the back of the ‘AGW’ religion and see risk free rewards to investing in useless infrastructure. Backed by nearly every western govenment, and therefore their tax bases, they get the reward without significant risk.
This is supported by every insurance company and bank now being forced to use the BIS inspired criteria for investment evaluation which includes the ‘climate mitigation’ factors.
Its is as Dr Ball says , a war that cannot be won by questioning the dubious science, because no one is interested. Least of all the investors who support the global brainwashing.
Unfortunately the only thing left to do as individuals is to tack in the wind, reduce personal exposure to the new energy costs being imposed, the new travel restrictions that will inevitably occur when the ICE is finally phased out.
A new semi-feudal future awaits us all.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 21, 2019 10:34 am

Thank You, Eric . . . couldn’t have said it better.
And by the way:

(1) Nobody has yet put a meter on my thermostat, forcing me to live in a cold house.
(2) Nobody has told me I have to get rid of my V-8 pickup truck.. Or come for my bacon.
(3) CAGW as a political issue is at the very bottom of people’s priorities in every national and global poll.
(4) You don’t see Russia, India, African nations, or China getting fluffed about this in the slightest. Why?
(5) Outside of the weather/energy interested folks’ bubble, these arguments get almost zero attention.
(6) The “Elites” use it to virtue-signal, while visibly living the extreme opposite of their “belief.”
(7) Winter is Coming. 😉

Methinks everyone needs to pour themselves an Easter drink and just chill.

J Mac
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 21, 2019 10:49 am

We are not winning in the greater Seattle area and much of Washington state. Aspects of Agenda 21 are deeply entrenched in municipal regulation and more are being implemented in the school districts.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 21, 2019 7:14 pm

“Groups like Blackrock are happy to mouth the words, but how many of their executives avoid air travel and family holidays for the sake of the planet?”

The point is what they do with Blackrock funds, not their personal behaviour

Joz Jonlin
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 21, 2019 10:20 pm

Yes, we’ve won. On 4-21-19, CNN posted a piece titled, “We’re Losing the War on Climate Change,” by John D. Sutter. I hated to give CNN a single click, but I just had to see what it was saying. Of course, Sutter references the ever inimical McKibben. We all know McKibben is a loon, but Sutter simply couldn’t avoid referencing McKibben. Sutter also mentions the Swedish teen, Greta Thunberg and talks about how she’s “schooling world leaders” on climate policy. When a group parades children for a cause, that’s called propaganda. These people will use any possible apocalyptic story, no matter how outlandish, as an excuse to seize power. In this existential extinction event induced by anthropogenic climate change, we have to be saved by any means necessary. It starts by making sure we’re sufficiently frightened. This will ensure we actually welcome, no, clamor for the totalitarianism of our world-saving overlords.

I’m sorry for the rant. I know I’m preaching to the choir.


April 20, 2019 4:07 pm

“Most skeptics know this because many are stunned by the strong hostile reaction they get when they state their position publicly. In many cases, they become ostracized in their family. ”
A colleague went to an event where Christiana Figueres was presented with an award. I didn’t let him know what I thought about her or her role and policies until after the event. Afterwards he was shocked when I stated that I didn’t share his admiration for her.
Domestically, my dear wife simply can’t understand why I don’t agree with the CO2 = climate change thing. When I was taken to task for questioning the co-option of children such as Greta Thunberg into ‘the cause’, I asked if it was likely that Greta or I knew more about the subject. No answer.
Sometimes we have to tread carefully.

Reply to  sonofametman
April 21, 2019 1:02 am

The big difference between you and Greta Thunberg is that you use logic and understanding whereas she feels really, really strongly about it while knowing diddly squat.

April 20, 2019 4:07 pm

“Climate change/Global Warming’ is a risk that investors can’t ignore because it is driven by an obsessive group of Luddites that wish to destroy modern civilisation and democracy. Black Rock would be well advised to sound the alarm on environmental Ludditism.
Dr. Tim Ball please keep on posting, we need your ideas now as much as we ever did.

April 20, 2019 4:07 pm

Of course you can’t educate people. Most people don’t want to be educated. They want to live the easiest lives possible. They want to enjoy good things and avoid difficulty. They know bad things can happen, sometimes to a lot of people all at once. They will believe a warning about bad things possibly happening. Ironically, they usually won’t take precautions to prevent/avoid/ameliorate the bad thing. They think emotionally, look for approval, and avoid reasoning. The older ones let much of the alarmism wash over; life is too busy to pay much attention. The young are too inexperienced to tell a lie from the truth. Unfortunately, they’re often still emotional infants, startled by every imagined threat. It’s always been that way (see the Bible book of Proverbs written 3 millennia ago) and always will be.

April 20, 2019 4:09 pm

Dr Ball – Thank you for you past efforts and your new endeavor.

nw sage
Reply to  John
April 20, 2019 8:02 pm

I agree, Thank you Dr Ball for your very clear, understandable an invaluable explanations of the real science behind the discussions. You have contributed more than you perhaps know to your cause. Even though YOU don’t believe you convinced enough people to make a difference, I disagree. I think many like me feel a lot more comfortable in our own opinions simply because you have done such an outstanding job of explaining. And there are more of us now than even before.
The game is not over! Eventually scientific reality will prevail. [remember Galileo, no matter how much the Church said the sun went ’round the earth, reality didn’t change.] As an engineer I know this to be true. No engineer who wishes to build anything ever ignores real, verified science – and we are well aware of the statistical traps that can catch us.

April 20, 2019 4:11 pm

Don’t be a quitter.

April 20, 2019 4:16 pm

Noble decision and your contribution to diminishing AGW hysteria will be missed. Thank you and I wish you well with the new direction of your efforts to enlighten.

April 20, 2019 4:16 pm

Survive and exploit the walking unfocused.

Robin Flockton
April 20, 2019 4:16 pm

Excellent post.
What is so sad is that AGW etc. Is a construct of European, North America and Australasia elites who are bent on destroying their countries and their economies. Russia, China, India and Japan will become the “powers” of the future leaving the progressives to freeze in the dark.

Eric Stevens
Reply to  Robin Flockton
April 20, 2019 4:54 pm

China and Russia seem to hold the lights at the end of the tunnel. Our descendants will find a wholly new world when they eventually emerge. It is ironic that for hope for humanity we may have to rely on nations who are presently regarded as our potential enemies.

Reply to  Eric Stevens
April 20, 2019 6:02 pm

China and Russia are probably funding most of the ‘Global Warming’ groups. I believe the KGB funded many of the original ‘environmental’ groups as a means of attacking the West…. names may change but the game remains the same.

Eric Stevens
Reply to  MarkG
April 20, 2019 8:48 pm

And it looks as though they are winning.

Reply to  Eric Stevens
April 20, 2019 11:18 pm

And here is their plan

April 20, 2019 4:17 pm

Dr Bill ,another great article. You may not change minds here , you don’t t need to , but what you do is reinforce what we know. Thank you

April 20, 2019 4:25 pm

Climate change is a risk investors can’t ignore:

Well, yes, sort of. The danger isn’t the climate per se. The danger is the governmental response to the perceived climate change risk. People talk about fossil fuels becoming stranded assets. That means the government would make it uneconomic to develop those assets.

Even the stranded asset argument isn’t very likely. link Fossil fuel consumption isn’t going to level off before the middle of the century. Even most of those who push CAGW realize that and admit it. Of course, when they do that they’re tacitly admitting that the twelve year (or whatever) deadline is bunk.

April 20, 2019 4:25 pm

Dear Dr Ball
I will finish your post later. But right now I wanted to leave this comment.
I have devoted the last several years to searching and investigating and reading and attempting to understand just as much as I can about climate change. Your post have played a major part in helping me to understand what is and is not happening to global climate. I understand that you may feel as if your efforts have not changed enough minds but know that your efforts have assisted in bringing me to a more complete understanding of not just what we know but what we do not know regarding the behavior of the global climate. I learned late in life that I was not the slow dumb individual that I was told that I was. In fact I learned that my intelligence was greater than most MDs and PHD candidates. Your post have helped me to come to a much fuller understanding of the field of climate science. I share your frustration anytime I engage others on this topic. I just need you to understand that your efforts have made a significant difference in one mans understanding.

Rebel with a Cause
Reply to  Robert
April 21, 2019 12:05 pm

I agree with Robert. I am not a scientist but a business man and entrepreneur now retired. I always thought Al Gore was a pompous ass. When he wrote “An Inconvenient Truth”, later turned that book into a movie and subsequently won an Oscar, I thought what is this all about? If Al Gore thinks CO2 is causing global warming I need to look into this. As I started my research, the internet led me to all the articles stating that 97% of scientists agree with the AGW concept. Further research led me to WUWT, Climate Depot and other blog sites. I read WUWT every day. If there is a post by Dr. Ball I go to that post immediately. I don’t always understand some of the more complex scientific posts but I am learning. I Just read Marc Morano’s “The Politically Incorrect Guide To Climate Change” which is a wonderful review of the issues without being overly scientific
To Dr. Ball’s point, don’t give up. Educate yourself, talk to your friends and family, you can make a difference. I start with the 97% consensus and explain where that came from and why it is bogus. I the discuss the fact that 400 parts per million of CO2 equals .04% of the total atmosphere and an increase to 800 parts per million is actually insignificant. I am making progress one person at a time.
Today the Washington Post Magazine was entirely devoted to climate change. A conglomerate of unsubstantiated doom and gloom with a plug for the Green New Deal (GND) at the close.
Dr. Ball is right this issue is political not scientific. If we lose, it will destroy the USA. So we must keep making our arguments and try to convince the alarmists with facts. Please keep providing those facts Dr. Ball to those of us in he trenches that need ammunition. Importantly we need another four years of Trump. He’s not my favorite but as far as I can tell all or most of the Democrat candidates support the GND. From what I have read there is a good chance the climate will cool as a result of low solar activity in the next six years. While I would prefer a warmer climate a cooling trend might help us persuade the many with an open mind on this issue.

April 20, 2019 4:25 pm

Please DO NOT quit the battle – the whole world needs you and many more like you.

Gerald Machnee
April 20, 2019 4:26 pm

Tim is correct. However I believe that 40 to 50 years ago people were more independent in their thinking and did not get taken in by every fake story. But as Tim said, the UN and the IPCC changed that by pretending to be experts in climate change. In addition the proliferation of high speed media meant that bad news travels faster. The media in their constant efforts to make money continue to push AGW and CAGW. It is hard to find a media person who questions it. And the politicians are the worst. Whether they actually believe AGW is still a question, but they accept the principle because it fits their agenda. Howard above asks why would scientists lie? Well n the USA universities it is big bucks.
A Manitoba Member of the Legislative Assembly told me one problem with the members is that almost none of them are educated in science so it is easy to accept statements such as “the science is settled”, “linked to”, “highly likely”, etc if it is coming from people in authority at Universities. You can check the web site of the Prairie Climate Centre in Manitoba if you want to see misleading information and exaggerated forecasts of the temperature for the rest of the century.
The only University scientists who will speak out are the ones near retirement. I pity the poor students in most universities who have to tow the line in any earth sciences in Manitoba and many other locations.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
April 20, 2019 4:42 pm

Well, you tend to get the result you pay for. For some forty years all the financial and professional incentives have been on the side of increasingly dire “scientific” findings. The results are just what should have been expected.

Alan Tomalty
April 20, 2019 4:28 pm

The one graph that proves that CO2 induced global warming doesn’t exist. I met Tim Ball when he came to Ottawa for a presentation on global warming. He is an honourable man that has been in an honourable fight against this biggest financial scam of all time.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
April 21, 2019 12:47 am

“The one graph that proves that CO2 induced global warming doesn’t exist. ”

Except it doesn’t….
For a start it not the Globe.
Maximum ice coverage does not show the extent of temperature trends. Ice thickness needs to be accounted for. The duration of melt is a function of ice thickness and in turn a function of winter cold.
This shows that (declining trend) ….
(If “not found” put the “.jpg” on the link manually).
In turn from ….

“The total loss for overall Great Lakes ice coverage is 71%, while Lake Superior places second with a 79% loss. An empirical orthogonal function analysis indicates that a major response of ice cover to atmospheric forcing is in phase in all six lakes, accounting for 80.8% of the total variance.”

April 20, 2019 4:29 pm

“I decided to stop trying to educate people … I want to help people bridge the gap between the false world of government and the real world”. LOL. I think they are the same thing Dr Ball. The situation is certainly very depressing. As Charles Mackay observed back in 1841, in his book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, people go mad in crowds, but tend to come to their senses individually.
I hope you will continue with your efforts. I have numerous “keepers’ from your material, which I can use when I am asked for advice by people who are having second thoughts about the veracity of the current climate change meme, and perhaps more urgently, when I am asked for help from parents who have a child who is so dispirited by this climate alarmism that they are becoming disengaged or even suicidal.
There are a large number of Greta Thunbergs out there, and most of them don’t get any help with what in my view is child abuse.

John Shade
Reply to  Martin Clark
April 20, 2019 5:06 pm

From the point of view of those trying to stem the tide of climate panic, Tim Ball stands as a giant in our midst, and I wish him progress with his new initiative. For me, I’d like to see more effort to find ways to help vulnerable people, not least children, who are victims of the scaremongering. So I was pleased to read your comment, Martin Clark, and learn that you are tackling this, and finding Tim Ball’s writings helpful for your efforts.

Steve Case
April 20, 2019 4:32 pm

Read Orwell’s “Animal Farm” the pigs won.

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Steve Case
April 21, 2019 8:15 am

And in Aldous Huxley’s utopia novel Island, the despots won. We pick our battles and mine has always been Energy though it is now inextricably linked to Climate (politically not actually) because taking a path away from nuclear energy is a path towards globalism/collapse/war/a new Dark Age/slavery again/disease again/depopulation… forgive me for being Tribal and implying that the United States is a crucial persuader keeping forces of darkness at bay… “It’s my job!”

Russia today resembles the post Civil War 19th Century United States in many ways, a self-sufficient practical Oligarchy with democratic and capitalist overtones. As a world power they are more closely aligned with US than many would admit. China is another matter. The EU is another matter. EU would rule the world with a clumsy hand, China with an iron hand.

The first country to mass produce and ship out practical and scalable commercial nuclear technology will rule the world. Which is why Andy’s video trying to reach the GOP in America on Climate and Energy Both is precious and important. It’s where the rubber hits the road.

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Hocus Locus
April 21, 2019 8:38 am

Andy’s video deserves to be linked every time it is mentioned and I noticed that just as I posted. I will light a candle for the return of Edit.

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Hocus Locus
April 21, 2019 9:52 am

This is me again, trying to LINK to the video.

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Hocus Locus
April 21, 2019 10:02 am

Okay, I give up. WUWT filters out links to WUWT articles. Go figure.

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Hocus Locus
April 21, 2019 11:17 am

After some testing I’ve discovered that WUWT does not parse A HREF with URLs that have trailing slashes properly unless they are “quoted”. So I should be able to LINK to Andy’s video now without error. Whew!

April 20, 2019 4:32 pm

Science runs in fads. You do what is right for you as you want to live your life. What other do is not relevant.

April 20, 2019 4:34 pm

Don’t feel too bad Dr Tim.

After all, half the world believes in some sorts of religious dogma, and CAGW is just another one of these.

In time, CAGW will be “old hat” and supplanted by something else that will offer humanity “salvation” from a concocted threat that only ever existed in the minds of some cabal or other (just like CAGW)

Having said that, I did have a soft spot for the “72 virgins” proposition.
(that didn’t come out quite right, did it?)

Reply to  Mr.
April 20, 2019 5:28 pm

“72 virgins”
was a miss-quote it should read … ‘A 72 yr old virgin’

Reply to  saveenergy
April 20, 2019 5:43 pm

And as Billy Connolly said – “72 virgins? Who needs that kind of grief? Give me a fire-breathin’ whore any day!”

Reply to  Mr.
April 20, 2019 11:10 pm

The 72 virgins turned out to be 72 Catholic Nuns.

Greg White
April 20, 2019 4:36 pm

The best course of action is to back and promote generation IV nuclear. It’s the only technology that can practically replace fossil fuels over time. There are no downsides to gen. IV, it’s a win/win regardless of anyone’s opinion about the political hoax of climate change.

Reply to  Greg White
April 20, 2019 9:18 pm

I’m really beginning to believe the Alarmists might win …and I’m pretty sure that AT BEST it will be a pyrrhic victory with no winners…everybody loses…really big.

A real dystopia is possible…even probable.

Sit down and really think about what would likely happen as we phase out fossil fuels. Sounds simple does it? IT ABSOLUTELY IS NOT.

There are a whole lot of very powerful and important chess pieces in this game:
• The Economy
• The Constitution
• The Military
• Real Americans that won’t surrender freedom easily or ever
• Agriculture and food distribution
• Fossil Fuel Industries (PLURAL)
• The Stock Market
• Capital Markets
• Everybody’s life savings

Do these dumb Fradulent Alarmist asses think that they can fundamentally interrupt and disrupt EVERYTHING without an unimaginable calamity erupting?

They are playing with nuclear fire that nobody will be able to tame.

Any efforts to phase out fossil fuels will be interesting. It sure as hell won’t be done voluntarily. I predict that there might be a little bit of conflict between the Alarmists/Deep State and the fossil fuel industries that have some $40 Trillion in hard earned productive assets in place and a few $Trillion more in product “in the ground” at stake. That conflict cannot turn out well. There is no possible way to pull this off cleanly. At best…the fossil fuel industry will pick up and leave the country to the extent they can taking a vast amount of wealth with then. Then they will sell fuel to the Chinese. IT WON’T STAY IN THE GROUND. They will probably go on strike and interrupt product (fuel) delivery. The backlash won’t be onto the industry…everybody will probably have lost their life savings by this time (stocks have crashed). Lots of angry eyes are aimed at the perpetrators by now…in Washington.

The stock market will totally collapse with an economic disruption with the scope of phasing out the fossil fuels industries.. you can’t command that stocks keep their value during MAJOR DISRUPTIONS. Capital will flee the country. Business all over the country will fail…causing a cascade of economic depression. Credit markets will shut down.

When the stock market completely collapses all hell will break lose.

The Military won’t just sit on the sidelines.

Do the Alarmists/Deep State whackos believe that they can dictate some kind of plan and everybody is just going to fall into line to make it happen? I won’t…and millions and millions of others won’t. The Alarmists/Deep State won’t get control of the Military… I can’t even begin to picture our servicemen bending the knee to these pussies and turning military power against the population. Won’t happen.

Is anybody starting to see the scope of the level of EVIL the friggin Fraudulent Alarmists intend to unleash on the world? A few more inches of Sea Level Rise might not look so bad by comparison.

The 2020 elections could put a damper on the Alarmist’s plans if they are forced to show their hands too soon. Trump needs to force them out into the open somehow…to expose the vastness of the amount of damage that the Alarmist/Deep State plans will inflict on the country.

Reply to  DocSiders
April 21, 2019 3:52 am

For Docsider – it’s even simpler than that:

Fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. For most people in the developed world, fossil fuels provide you with everything you need to survive – your food, your warm home, your car, your computer, your TV, and your mobile phone.

If fossil fuels are eliminated, all this will soon go away, and almost everyone in the developed world will be dead in about a month from starvation and exposure. Other than that kids, it’s a terrific plan…

Garland Lowe
April 20, 2019 4:48 pm

The main stream media sided with the alarmist, I assume because alarmism sells. You were fighting a hoax perpetuated by the press. Politicians (I’m not going there). Thank you for all your hard work.

Garland Lowe

Reply to  Garland Lowe
April 20, 2019 6:05 pm

The media sided with the alarmists because the alarmists are Marxists and so are the majority of modern journalists. They’re on a mission to Save The World by bringing it to socialist utopia.

John Bell
April 20, 2019 4:51 pm

Walk toward the fire, don’t worry about what they call you!

Mike Malone
April 20, 2019 4:54 pm

What has been missing in this effort to educate the public was highlighted in a previous WUWT article “Why we may never be able to change minds on the climate issue” (April 12, 2019). People are naturally tribal; historically for protection from neighboring tribes and wild beasts, in modern times for the safety of social acceptance and business relationships. Skeptical scientists and technical people tend to argue facts, figures, and data. They/we can win the debate, but that is insufficient to overcome tribal loyalties. Why would someone want to risk being socially cast out by their peers and friends by voicing a differing opinion on climate? What do they have to gain from that, what do the have to lose? Skeptics need to build attractive social groups with cheerful, persuasive leadership and an interesting social culture. The broader public will be attracted to that first and foremost, and then perhaps be willing to hear “facts, figures and data.” Plus its more fun.

Serge Wright
April 20, 2019 4:55 pm

The mistake made by skeptics was to assume that all people are inherently unbiased and intelligent and that conveying facts with supportive data will influence their thinking.

Unfortunately, left-wing ideology is not based on logic, but on a belief system. In a debate with an alarmist, all logic and facts are dismissed simply because they are not considered important. What is important to these poeple is supporting the belief in their moral cause, which is about taking money from wealthy people and redistributing to their victims, which are generally poor people and minority groups, plus themselves. Importantly, left wing ideology is based on having victims and a perpetrator (ie: enemy), which is why society is becoming more and more divided. This is a deliberate tactic to first divide and then conquer. Here we see deliberate divisions being orchestrated between sexes, races, religions, etc, all designed to destaibilise society. Climate change is seen by the alarmists as an important tool in which to facilitate their outcome as it provides a moral cause of salvation, and a perpetrator, which are the systems of capitalism and democracy, which they seek to overthow to establish hard left totalitarianism.

In terms of being able to counter the narrative, this is not easy. Left wing ideology has slowly taken hold of all learning institutions in western countries and most governement funded institutions. This has been a deliberate move by the left. Once you control the learning corriculum and government regulatory bodies, then you can control what people do and think and you can condition people from a young age into your system of beliefs, just as we see in extreme religious ideology. Trying to convince a climate alarmist that the theory is wrong is just as dificult as trying to convince an Islamic extremist that there is no Allah. It’s basically impossible as there is no room for logic in a belief system.

So where do we go from here ?

Possibly the only way to fix society is to take back control of the education system. This won’t be easy as it’s completely overerrun by extreme left wing zealots. Even if you can kick the zealots out today, it would take decades to restore the ideological balance within society back to a normal situation (aka 1970s).

Most likely we will need to let this entire scenario play out. This is a bad outcome experience, but one that every skeptic can clearly envisage. Once the final chapters of the left wing playbook are put in place, ie: GND or similar, then we all know that total economic collapse will follow and mass poverty and starvation will ocurr across western countries. Once people have become poor and impoverished then they tend to focus on getting their own food and shelter as a priority. This is probbaly the time when poeple will have the hard wake up call and realise they were duped and the time when people can be reeducated back to the where we were 50-100 years ago.

John anthony
April 20, 2019 5:00 pm

You don’t quit when you are winning.,the damage being done to the economies who adopt this creed is becoming increasingly obvious hence the more strident and vicious reactions.Sceptics are on the ascendancy. Do not give up.

Greg Woods
April 20, 2019 5:02 pm

Don’t worry: Reality, sooner or later, will catch with the Alarmists…

Johann Wundersamer
April 20, 2019 5:02 pm

“Recently, I received the charge through my web site that I was just “another conspiracy theorist.” Other attempts to marginalize included the term global warming skeptic or climate change denier.”

be assured not to be alone with that label: conspiracy theorist.

Every responsible state has papers and documents which can not be made accessible to the general public – especially the MSM.

Usually after 30 years all documents are released.

During this time, the underlying problem should be recognized and banned.


Who in the meantime thinks “there is something missing” but has no access to facts must stand to be suspected as a conspiracy theorist.

C’est la vie.

April 20, 2019 5:05 pm

A very good and interesting article.

I as a Atheist find exactly the same thing if I ever discuss faiths with a person
who is a believer.

It is not enough to simply say that its just a myth, with no solid evidence
to back it up, but if you take it one step at a time such as how did a
simple tale of a young preacher man, Jesus, who upset the strong group
of High Priests who ran the Temple ceremonies, and who then framed
him for the crime of his followers carrying arms, resulting in his Jesus
execution, evolve into today’s widespread belief system.

You then point out the odd situation of the enforcer Saul of Tarsus, who
while on the road to Damascus probably suffered a stroke, and this event
completely changed his thinking about what had become the Jesus cult.

He Saul somehow now thought that contrary to his belief hat the Jesus
cult must be destroyed, had changed to a belief now that Jesus was in
fact the Son of God, and that he had been placed on Earth to save the
Jewish people from their sinful ways, but that as the Jews had in effect
aided the Romans in his execution, then they were to blame for killing him.

This way of thinking was essential if he Saul was to ever sell this story to
the Romans, it was the Jews and certainly not Governor Pilot who did it.
Thus this myth was born that the Jews were bad people and that lead
to the anti- Semitism in Germany and the death camps.

Fast forward to the time of Emperor Constantine and we see a clear
parallel with today’ politicians. Constantine for political reasons to unite
his vast Empire, offered a deal that they, the early Christians could not

He cherry picked his version of the Jesus story and said if they
accepted it as the official story that he would make them Princes of the
Church, plus lots of money to build Churches and spread the word.

As we say that is now history, and its a perfect example of how a simple
story of a idealistic young man in Roman Palestine can become a still
very powerful organization.

To me the resemblance between this story about Jesus and Climate change
are very similar.

So my suggestion regarding the widespread belief in Global warming come
climate change is to nibble at it a bit at a time, starting with the key card
in this whole House of Cards, the molecule CO2.

I hope that this article does not upset to many people who just as with
Climate Change , they truly believe.


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Michael
April 21, 2019 6:58 am

I’m reading a good book about the Apostle Paul and the early Christian church.

The Title is: Jesus is Risen, Paul and the Early Church by David Limbaugh.

It’s been enlightening for me. And it has a good description of Paul on the Road to Damascus. It doesn’t sound like he had a stroke to me.

Rob Leviston
April 20, 2019 5:10 pm

Thanks for all your work Dr Tim Ball!
I certainly understand your frustration.
Its like watching the lemmings walk over the precipice.
But, in reading your article, I was reminded of a particular verse in the Bible,
2 Thessalonians 2:11 New International Version (NIV)
11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.
Seems apt.

Mark Fisher
April 20, 2019 5:16 pm

Dr. Ball: I respect your decision but am saddened by it. I would ask you that you look at the glass and realize that it wouldn’t be merely empty but for efforts, it would lay shattered. The hysteria would be universal and it would dominate government action and result in totalitarianism beyond our comprehension.

Reconsider and weigh the thought that without men & women of intellectual rigor willing to challenge those misusing science what hope do those without the education, talent & experience have when their instinct tells them “this is wrong”?

Thank you regardless of your decision.

April 20, 2019 5:20 pm

I say a new direction because the last 50 years attempted to educate the people to the lie that is human-caused global warming and effectively changed nothing.

How could you possibly know what effect you’ve had? And even if none, should you be the one man who changes the world? If so, why? And if not, do you do well to be angry? Does not the Potter have the right to form the clay? Finally, how can you possibly think to achieve anything if you hide your light under a bushel?

For one such as I who has greatly appreciated your past efforts, and for which I thank you, it’s extremely disappointing to learn that you yourself have decided to snuff out your own light by an irrational, if not pretentious, standard.

Are you not one of many appointed watchman as per Ezekiel 33:7ff?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  sycomputing
April 20, 2019 7:05 pm

“How could you possibly know what effect you’ve had?”

Yeah, you never know who might be reading your material. President Trump might be a fan. Don’t deprive Donald of your insights. 🙂

Skeptics are going up against a very powerful CAGW machine and it can be discouraging at times but I think the skeptics are winning. The only thing the other side has is a Big Lie and no evidence for it being real. Meanwhile, the temperatures have been cooling for the last three years which can’t help the alarmist case.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 20, 2019 8:12 pm

Skeptics are going up against a very powerful CAGW machine and it can be discouraging at times but I think the skeptics are winning.

And even if we aren’t, what shall we do, run away moaning and bewailing our failure to convince the world that our position is the correct one? Or is it better to stay in the fight until the very end?

I would argue the latter.

Peter Morris
April 20, 2019 5:29 pm

You ever play Go, Dr. Ball?

The right move can flip nearly the entire board from one color to the other.

Such will be the case with this.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Peter Morris
April 20, 2019 5:47 pm

I don’t think so. People don’t like to admit they’ve been duped. They’ll double-down instead.

Don Perry
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 20, 2019 7:48 pm

Ala the Democrat response to Mueller report.

April 20, 2019 5:34 pm

Thanks Dr Ball.

I always marveled at people like Dr Ball who stood in the precipice and tried to make a difference. They try to “Hold Back The Night” and they do their damndest as long as they can.

So, it’s time to pass the torch to the next standard bearer, whomever that might be. But be assured, Dr Ball, that you have been appreciated by thousands and that is a pretty good legacy.

April 20, 2019 5:35 pm

Generation IV Nuclear. The new generation alternatives cannot meltdown. They use nuclear waste from current nuclear generation facilities.

Strangely, this technology should be approved by the true believers in the religion of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, those atheists who see no problem, and those true believers in the other religion who advocate Catastrophic Natural Global Cooling.

No danger. Eats nuclear waste. Produces no CO2. Can provide sufficient energy to survive the warming, if any. Can provide sufficient energy to survive the cooling, if any.

Side benefit: We can stop being “friends” with the Saudis. Our “allies” enforce Sharia.

April 20, 2019 5:45 pm

“There should be a test for accountants, prognosticators, forecasters, futurist, meteorologists, climatologist, scientists, predictors, and visionaries: They should have to disclose their past record for predicting the future.”

P.S. Wall Street already does it.

Anonymous Heins

John Rae
Reply to  Stephen Heins
April 21, 2019 3:43 am

“Futurebabble” by Dan Gardner is a good read. He discussed the work of Philip Tetlock (an American psychologist), who ran a 20 year project on predictions. He rounded up about 300 people, experts in many fields plus some lay people. They were asked to make some 30,000 predictions about various issues over the 20 years. Experts were very good at explaining the current situation (which I guess is why they were recognised as experts), but when it came to predicting the future, you might as well rely on a dart-throwing chimp.

Tom in Florida
April 20, 2019 5:47 pm

I have said this too many times, I am sure regular readers are sick of it by now, but it has to be said again. Stop trying to win with facts and logic, you can only win by appealing to emotion and benefits. Sales 101. The left have been doing that for decades. Look what car companies have done. Instead of fighting electric cars with facts, they embrace the dangerous warming narrative and sell the benefits of those cars. It is long past the time when we should have embraced the warming predictions as a good thing and sold the benefits of it. Instead we continue to fight with facts that alienate the uninformed. They simply don’t want to hear what they don’t understand. They want to feel like they serve some useful purpose so they jump on the band wagon of the side they see as winning. To those people the winning side is the right side. Believe me, they will change sides faster than a chameleon when they need to.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 21, 2019 3:11 am

Tom in Florida


Jon Salmi
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 21, 2019 11:16 am

I find that accusing warmists of racism and poor-hating, is an effective way of getting their attention and even occasionally getting them to think. Thanks to Paul Driessen and others i have plenty of ammunition on my side.

DeLoss McKnight
April 20, 2019 5:48 pm

I think the better course is for Dr. Ball to continue doing what he’s been doing. He needs to continue showing the public in understandable ways how the current science is flawed. That information has to be out there.

If you shift to motive, you will be scoffed at. For one thing, a large number of people have become convinced that socialism is a good thing. Telling them that Climate Change is just a face for the advancement of socialism will be seen as a *good* thing, not a bad. Many of the rest will see your claim as doubling down on conspiracy theories. They won’t believe you. They will see that as absurd.

Your best bet to fight this scam is to do something positive. That is advocating hard for Generation 4 nuclear power. Oil, gas and coal will not last forever. We will need to find a replacement for them someday. That may be a hundred years or more, but that is the cushion that we need to develop new technologies. We know that windmills and solar panels aren’t the solution. Gen4 nuclear is close at hand. The best aspect of Gen4 is that when it is fully developed, it will be nearly a carbon-free method of power.

It will be an uphill battle. There is a lot of money behind windmills and solar panels. That’s probably why Blackrock is pushing Climate Change now; they are probably heavily invested in those fields. But the logic behind Gen4 is strong: a long-term solution that isn’t beholden to foreign powers and is a clean source of energy. This is the shift in focus that Dr. Ball needs. Instead of being a negative voice (Climate Alarmism is false!), he becomes a positive voice (Let’s go with a new clean source of energy that solves the intermittency problem of solar and wind!). He can still state that he doesn’t believe in the alarm, but come across not as an opponent who cares nothing for our future children, but as someone who is willing to work toward the same goal of cheap, clean power.

April 20, 2019 5:48 pm

90+% of humanity are not scientists and trying to convince them AGW was wrong with science was never going to work.

Everyone on the planet has one common denominator. We all have a political belief and, we are all experts in politics.

How can one educate people in science when they don’t understand the subject matter in the first place?

It’s about time sceptics began to understand the game is won by political means, which is where the alarmists hit pay dirt. They spoke the language of politics and, of course, everyone is a political expert.

Reply to  HotScot
April 20, 2019 7:35 pm

How can one educate people in science when they don’t understand the subject matter in the first place?

Like so:

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climateis computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

Reply to  sycomputing
April 21, 2019 3:10 am

Try telling that to an Arts graduate (ostensibly educated) or an 18 year old working in a coffee shop, a supermarket or in an office. Try telling it to a stay at home Mum, a bus driver, or most of his passengers.

They simply won’t get past the second sentence before switching off.

The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

Classic, unintelligible, scientific pomposity.

As a layman I can, with considerable authority, tell you that had I not been reading this blog and many others for several years now, I wouldn’t have a clue what you just said.

Was it Einstein who said something like ‘If you can’t explain science to a six year old you don’t understand it yourself’?

The alarmists have stolen a march because they discuss the subject emotionally and politically, subjects we are all experts in.

Reply to  HotScot
April 21, 2019 6:56 am

As a layman I can, with considerable authority, tell you that had I not been reading this blog and many others for several years now, I wouldn’t have a clue what you just said.

Interesting . . . this is the very text I use to talk to laymen in order to avoid science altogether. Seems to me it says it all in plain English.

Mark Broderick
April 20, 2019 5:52 pm

Dr. Tim Ball

“It is a classic Catch 22 you must provide a motive and (be)? marginalized or don’t provide one and get no traction with the wider public.

P.S. Great job, as always….

Jim McKenzie
April 20, 2019 5:57 pm

Tim I have been following all this climate nonsense with great interest in the last several years and I can assure you that your articles and lectures on the internet are most valuable entertaining and useful and most important educational. Thousands of people have enjoyed reading your prose and listening to you. You do it very well you are the best. Students must have loved your classes that you taught at university. Please carry on even if you do it not as often. We all look forward to your next post. And more people really understand things as they really are from what you have told them.

You don’t think we are making enough progress? The analogy is like this think of an unbelievably messy dirty room and you start to clean it up. It really doesn’t look a lot better until you have done 90% of the work. I think we are at the 90% point. And we need you to help finish off the last 10%. Keep at it and you can help get it done. Your work has been very significant. The world needs you.

April 20, 2019 5:59 pm

“Just another conspiracy theorist….”

Well, if that’s all that someone has to say about you, he has nothing. That isn’t even a good insult. The proper come back is “Well, at least I”m consistent!”

There are people whose opinions seem to be cast in stone (they aren’t) who simply won’t accept another view or an opposing idea, and all they have left as a response is insults, and amateurish stuff at that. Take some time off, put your feet up, read a good novel or two, and move on. These people are stupid and blind to other possibilities because they want to be that way. Arguing with a convert to a cult to try to get him to see a different viewpoint is not wasted energy. Bring up that word: CULT – and ask him how it feels to be unable to think for himself.

April 20, 2019 6:07 pm

This field of science needs it’s own Sarbanes Oxley. Never understood as a CPA why the same stringent laws aren’t applied for climate studies. The end users are governments who spend billions on this. If your numbers have material errors, I want some of those claw back laws applied. I want scientists called in on the carpet. I want Congressional hearings. I want jail time. You sign your name as having peer-reviewed it, you own it. Why should it be any different?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  AEGeneral
April 26, 2019 3:45 am

Great idea! Especially since the damage which would result from taking the advice of so-called “climate scientists” is so much worse than that which could ever result from following the advice of accountants!

Power Grab
April 20, 2019 6:11 pm

I’m with Garland Lowe: “…alarmism sells.”

The media are a HUGE part of the problem. They have been bought and sold by the most incorrigible control freaks ever to walk the face of the Earth. Also, since CGI and VR/AR have made such great strides at imitating reality, we must remember that what we’re viewing might very well be fake or heavily doctored-up.

I personally take in their message in extremely small doses.

When i’m not at work, I spend my time consuming, making, and teaching others to make uplifting music–or reading thoughtful blogs like WUWT.

Steven Mosher
April 20, 2019 6:15 pm

A couple of skeptics have made their mark , made their mark by doing better science.

Steve McIntryre
Anthony watts
Nic Lewis.

The skeptics who just shout no, who fantasize about global conspiracies, they never leave a mark.
They do no science; they don’t even try. They have no students, they just have cheerleaders, and
folks who link to their nuttery. Nobody carries on their work or builds on the their work
because they didn’t do anything.

In the end they lose the science fight because they never did better science, they just threw tomatoes.
And when they lose the science fight, embittered and old, they quit and try a new fight that they
are totally untrained for.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 20, 2019 9:32 pm

“a new fight that they are totally untrained for.”
Freudian slip about yourself perhaps Mosh?
So remind us about your science degree again, last I looked English lit wasn’t a science 🙂

Reply to  LdB
April 21, 2019 3:14 am


Ah! But his latest employers have given Stephen the title of ‘Scientist’ so of course he’s now scientifically educated.

Reply to  HotScot
April 21, 2019 4:24 am

Ah yes I forgot employers can just issue honorary science degrees.

Richard Case
Reply to  LdB
April 24, 2019 6:17 am

Agreed. And Mosher displays his low-brow hostility by throwing tomatoes at one with a PhD in Climatology.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 20, 2019 10:39 pm


you are badly mistaken since most people learn on their own about climate stuff. They visit websites that help them see what the nonsense is about. I have converted quite a few over the years, some have referred me to join my forum in past years. Others have gone to the warmist drone level, meaning they have lost but never will admit it.

I joined quite a few forums over the years, 20 years ago, when I first started, there were a lot of people who were convinced that global warming was a big concern, but over time, people began to see behind the curtains. See that Al Gore always full of hot air who always duck debate challenges, see that the Hockey Stick paper was garbage, even though a small group of people defend the garbage with a passion that borders on insanity, most people now a days don’t give a dam. See that the 2009 e-mails opened a lot of eyes to the corruption. The Wegman and North reports took the hot air out of Dr. Mann’s playstation paper, exposing it as statistical gibberish.

Then we see that the U.S. Senate in 1997 told President Clinton in a resolution, that they think the Kyoto treaty sucks with a 95-0 vote. Then a number of published science papers came along showing that CO2 LAGS Temperature changes.


Then recent polls such as the open ended question one that people can list their concerns had zero climate concerns in it, ZERO!

“New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate


Lets face it more and more people are tuning out because they have been hearing the same dooms day pap for 30 years now, why take it seriously anymore they often say. The remaining diehards to the AGW cause have gotten crazier and crazier, with the latest baloney called the Green Plan, since according to the bartender boob, we have only 12 years to live, since the invisible CO2 bogeyman is out to get yooooooo! Unless you trash Capitalism, usher in total Authoritarian Socialism, then we live with a boot on our necks, but we will live far beyond 2030, when I feel better know we have schizophrenic planetary saviors always around to watch over us (literally), while we enjoy watery soup and a one room shack.

Utopia is right around the corner! Yahoooooo……

I don’t agree with Dr. Ball since warmists have LOST the debate, they are so busy changing the data and lying like hell, that they seem unaware that skeptics are pointing them out to people, I sure have a lot in this forum, where I fight the low thinking warmists, who act if they are drones for the AGW cause. They can barely articulate anything scientifically in a coherent manner, but golly they think they are smart…., often completely unaware that they show a reduced motor thinking skill, which is why they make fools of themselves and be unaware of it.

As far as I know this is one of the largest Environment forum on the internet chock full of climate related debates, where skeptics routinely make fools of the warmists who ignore the inconvenient evidence and lie a lot. When I first came on there were a lot of confident warmists participating all the time, but today with just 3 people doing most of the heavy lifting (Sunsettommy, SSDD, billy_bob) have driven most of them into the corner, exposing their ignorance and their obvious lemming cult behavior.

A recent post I started there was to defend Dr. Moore’s being a founding member, a couple warmists would NOT accept the actual original Greenpeace webpages that clearly showing him as a founder, it was hilarious as they tried so hard to defeat the evidence.

GreenPeace lies about Dr. Moore…. again

Warmists make fools of themselves so easily here.


There have been new skeptics showing up from other areas of the forum or from outside who joins to add to the beating warmists get. They know they are losing the debate. Only one new member who is a warmist showed up in the last year.

I haven’t even brought up another Environment forum, where a few skeptics there are actual scientists, run in circles around warmists who are unaware of the exposure to their delusions to the world. I often visit just to watch the beatings there and learn some more too.

Never give up and don’t denigrate the smart people who don’t need websites to know that the AGW is at best only 50% correct, the rest is impossible since it never happened in the last Billion years.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 20, 2019 10:40 pm

The world needs more than just scientists doing science Steven. Most of the world will never read a single scientific paper. They need honest people who can distill the essence of hundreds of scientific papers into an easily understandable format. They need people who can read scientific papers that most people can’t understand, and point out whether or not the conclusions in the studies are valid, vapid, or somewhere in between. Science can’t stand on it’s own. It needs editors. It needs compilers. It needs people like Dr. Ball. He has already left a mark on me, and I think more people than he will ever know. Now put away your tomatoes please.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 12:24 pm


The reason the unambiguous science from so many that overturns everything that the IPCC claims is ignored is because the conspiracy you deny is very real, although to me it seems to be more of a conflict of interest, where the IPCC’s very existence requires what the laws of physics can’t provide. Other than complete incompetence, there can be no other explanation for how climate science per the IPCC got to be so incredibly wrong. By this I mean an ECS that violates every known law of physics as it defies the data. The fact that the science is so incredibly wrong contributes to why so many have a hard time accepting how wrong it is. After all, how can ostensibly intelligent scientists be so incredibly wrong about something so important to the future of mankind.

If you don’t think the science is horribly broken, then answer the question I’ve posed many times and that nobody who accepts the IPCC’s fake science has been able to answer, including well known alarmist ‘scientists’:

How can the planet tell one Joule from another such that the next W/m^2 of solar input (forcing) will increase surface emissions by 4.4 W/m^2 (0.8C) while all the other W/m^2 arriving from the Sun only contribute 1.62 W/m^2 to the surface emissions?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 21, 2019 12:29 pm


The reason the unambiguous science from so many that overturns everything that the IPCC claims is ignored is because the conspiracy you deny is very real, although to me it seems to be more of a conflict of interest, where the IPCC’s very existence requires what the laws of physics can’t provide. Other than complete incompetence, there can be no other explanation for how climate science per the IPCC got to be so incredibly wrong. By this I mean an ECS that violates every known law of physics as it defies the data. The fact that the science is so incredibly wrong contributes to why so many have a hard time accepting how wrong it is. After all, how can ostensibly intelligent scientists be so incredibly wrong about something so important to the future of mankind.

If you don’t think the science is horribly broken, then answer the question I’ve posed many times and that nobody who accepts the IPCC’s fake science has been able to answer, including well known alarmist ‘scientists’:

How can the planet tell one Joule from another such that the next W/m^2 of solar input (forcing) will increase surface emissions by 4.4 W/m^2 (0.8C) while all the other W/m^2 arriving from the Sun only contribute 1.62 W/m^2 each to the surface emissions?

If every W/m^2 of solar forcing increased surface emissions by 4.4 W/m^2. the surface emissions would correspond to a temperature close to the boiling point of water. The scientific method calls the results of this test of compliance with COE falsification.

April 20, 2019 6:20 pm

In the final analysis, the scientific truth will always win. It’s too bad none of us will still be here to say ‘I told you so’ when kilometers thick glaciers are descending on Manhattan once again.

It’s odd that so many deny the conflict of interest shaping climate science. The IPCC’s charter is to identify science supporting the UNFCCC whose transparent agenda is to destroy wealth using the pretext of saving the planet as the IPCC’s self serving consensus claims is ‘most likely’ required. In light of this conflict of interest, how did the IPCC ever become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science by what they publish in their reports?

April 20, 2019 6:23 pm

Reason can not prevail against stupid, Dr Ball.
Now you know how silly was the notion you could fix anybody.
Fighting and winning are 2 entirely different propositions.
The fighting was fail.
Your intransigent devotion to the truth was win.
What makes you a hero, Dr Ball, is that you refused to compromise your principles.
You asserted irrevocable sovereignty of your mind. You own your self.
There is nothing greater to be won.

April 20, 2019 6:26 pm

Dear Mr. Ball,
Your efforts and those of others that share your understanding of climate science have certainly not been in vain. The most powerful government in the world is actively dismantling the fake science and policies which would flow therefrom. The American people know its a scam, hence no serious national policy response. Only the lunatic fringe in blue states are attempting to perpetuate this windmill tilting. They will fail as these policies will make life unbearable and unaffordable.
Thank you from a grateful citizen. There are many like me.

George Daddis
April 20, 2019 6:31 pm

Dr. Ball, please don’t for a minute think that your efforts were unappreciated, or even worse, ineffective!


Jim Hansen took advantage of an upswing the natural cycles of temperature, allowing the left leaning MSM and politicians to use that as an opportunity to promote a global ideology, using emotion not data, as their ally. You were fighting a rising tide for much of your battle.

In the long game, I think DATA, actual observation, will eventually prevail if we persist (At 78, I may have to hand the baton off).

Despite the indoctrination of public education, I believe human intellect will force people as they mature, to understand that the end of the world has not occurred, and the draconian measure proscribed were not necessary, especially if we keep putting observations in the forefront.

I sense the “Consensus” team are already looking for “escape” explanations for an avenue out.

There is a paradox that as nations and economies develop, there is a tendency to reject capitalism, which is what got them to where they are (including uplifting the poorest compared to other current systems), in favor of Socialism and its big brother Globalism.

We WILL prevail and it was because as Isaac Newton quoted: “We were standing on the shoulders of Giants“.

Thank you.

April 20, 2019 6:33 pm

“Apart from my overall failure”

I believe you need to watch “It’s a wonderful life” with Jimmy Stewart again; and perhaps you need a Clarence.

Instead, consider what the world would be like if the lies of alarmists were not countered?

“Recently, I received the charge through my web site that I was just “another conspiracy theorist.”

* Completely overlooking the fact that several elitist billionaires actively fund online disinformation campaigns and fake alarmists.
* Others are simply deluded believers who do not have another life besides online trolling.
* Lastly, there are many whose jobs are dependent upon the CAGW scam continuing.
* If $1 Trillion dollars is spent globally on CAGW, then it behooves those dependent upon CAGW continuing to devote all of their grant funds and time promoting alarmism.

“It’s a group that slowly grew in numbers over the years but achieved little impact in the wider community. A major reason is the division of that community into approximately 15% who are competent and comfortable in science and 85% who are not.”

No competence in science is necessary. All it takes to rebut alarmists are simple questions.
* Why hasn’t either pole melted away as predicted?
* Why do temperatures seem the same ones I grew up with.
* In spite of alarming news articles, NOAA proves that storms are not more frequent nor more violent.
* No animals are dying from climate change. Polar Bears, whales and penguins are thriving.
* Oceans are not warming. SST temperatures are restricted to surface waters that were basically unmeasured until recently. NOAA’s fake ocean increase measured in joules works out to less than instrument capability.
etc. etc. etc.

While these arguments do not convince deluded or employment dependent alarmists; no argument will! These arguments do introduce doubt into ordinary citizens. Especially those citizens who can still ask their grandparents about the depression era.

Johann Wundersamer
April 20, 2019 6:36 pm

“recent headline in the Telegraph that triggered this penultimate move. It said, “Climate change is a risk investors can’t ignore: Black Rock latest to sound the alarm on environment.”

what can black rock do. a hedge fund is committed to its investors.

as investors are attracted by the “morally superior” image there’s always the risk of declining returns from potential losses:

real world evidence of what is feasible and what turns out to be wishful thinking, make believe.

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
April 21, 2019 12:45 am

So Black Rock thinks it can ride the CAGW wave to greater profit. I readily concede that they are far greater investment experts than I am, but it seems to me that they are too late. The wave is surely near its peak, green projects are starting to go bust, public pushback against carbon taxes (a feedstock of green projects) appears to be strengthening, and decline for green investments in future is starting to look more likely than strong growth.

BTW, I’m up 200% on my coal shares. Black Rock may know a lot more than I do, but sometimes I reckon I know enough.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 21, 2019 7:22 am

“BTW, I’m up 200% on my coal shares.”

200 percent ain’t bad! Good for you! Good choice! 🙂

April 20, 2019 6:37 pm


April 20, 2019 6:40 pm

Things you can do if you really put your minds to it:

Harry Passfield
Reply to  u.k.(us)
April 21, 2019 9:52 am

As I once heard an American say, searching for a superlative: “That’s awesomer!”

Reply to  u.k.(us)
April 21, 2019 10:24 am

Many years ago I was an apprentice with Rolls-Royce. One of my favorite grunt jobs was taking manometer readings in the test beds when they were running full power tests on military jet engines. Full afterburners are awesome indeed.

Dave's not here
April 20, 2019 7:20 pm

It tends to be that when on the precipice of a win, things tend to look the most lost. The increasing rhetoric of climate change, while discouraging on it’s face, indicated the foundation is getting ever more unstable, thus needs reinforcements from the top. So I think you drastically underestimate the effects you’ve had.

April 20, 2019 7:24 pm


You’re on the right track.

Providing facts, reality, well-reasoned logic will not win this battle.

Understanding our opponents’, their belief system, their strategy and their tactics is the first step toward winning. You’ve been slowly taking that first step.

Politically Correct Progressives’ belief system is what we are up against.

It was created, beginning in the 1920s, to destroy Normal American culture.

The genius who conceived of, and created the operation that planted this toxic belief system in our culture targeted the transmission belts of American culture: the media, Hollywood, and education/academia.

He created the message of hatred, and he created the tactics to spread the hatred, and to make the hatred “cool.” He created what he called Innocents Clubs, funded them, and proliferated them. Today these hate-mongers include Greenpeace, SPLC, and others.

The beliefs he created were: America is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, imperialist, capitalist hell-hole. And it must be changed.

The operation was successful. It took 80 years, but it now is the dominant cultural force in the USA.

It is based on hatred of everything that made America successful and a beacon of hope for the world. Their goal is to destroy America.

“Global warming” is just one manifestation of PC-Progs’ destruction.

You’re on the right track. Keep up the journey, and fight the good fight.

Here’s a short video that might help:

April 20, 2019 7:31 pm

Why end? Start all over again.

New people have been born. New people have never seen competent treatments of the subject, and they need to.

Maybe this is the start of a period that WILL have greater effect, and you are ending right at the pivotal moment.

Take a break, … chill a bit, … refresh, and get back to it.

I appreciate your disciplined, competent, informed, civil treatments.

Tony Anderson
April 20, 2019 7:38 pm

As Roosevelt said “We have nothing to fear but fear itself!” And the climate alarmists trade on fear not on scientific facts. It is why the Democrats are trying, trying to bring down Trump. The sooner he establishes his proposed committee to verify the science or otherwise about climate change the better.
If we continue along the path of fear, Western civilization has not progress from when we first left the caves or acted like the builders of the Tower of Babel.
I can only wish that an Australian government will set up a committee such as the one Trump proposed, but I hold little hope, as we jump off the cliff, talking about carbon credits (and who would trade with Australia as we provide negligible CO2 emissions anyway), as Australia takes on a virtuous stance to save the planet.
Long may climate change denialist live.

April 20, 2019 7:49 pm

I listened to a huge, huge investor make the virtual signaling decision of divesting from oil and gas, and the reasoning was the fund was doing so terrific, what the heck, we can afford to take the hit of a couple percentage points. So in a sense, the booming economy is being an enabler of climate change alarmism. Ironic, isn’t it?
Nevada’s idiot leguslature this week made it a law that the state would get 50% of its energy from sun, wind, bio and geo by 2030. Existing hydro excluded. It’s not even possible to do a geothem project from exploration to production in 10 years, but since the fines and penalties for failure go right into the general fund, it’s a big win either way. Works? Great, tax money from new licenses. Doesn’t work? Even better, fines and penalties out the yazoo.
Watching our industrialized economy get deconstructed with the stroke of a pen is like watching the cathedral burn. 100 years in the making, reduced to rubble in 24 hours. But while some people are mourning the loss of a symbol of man’s spirituality and an archtectural marvel, others are celebrating the destruction of the symbol of an oppressive religion and a useless relic of the past.
This is a chasm deeper and wider than will ever be bridged, I fear.
While I’m on a rant, another Nevada bill will require public and private schools to institute a sun protection awareness program and allow schoolkids to wear sunscreen or a hat in the sun. This is the kind of micromanagement that appeals to the Big Government People. Public Service Announcements won’t do, they gotta have a law on the books pertaining to sunscreen. smh

April 20, 2019 7:54 pm

I sense the start of a paradigm shift in Western consciousness itself.
We no longer believe even Big Lies.

The unthinkable thought is that people in politics, in the media, and in the corporate world are not actually interested in the truth, because truth wins no votes, sells no product, attracts no advertising revenue.., but are instead only interested in what people can be persuaded is true. Truth is mundane and boring. Emotional narratives are captivating and emotionally satisfying

This works brilliantly with fuzzy imponderables like what gender you really are if you find yourself fondling your nips instead of your balls one morning, or wondering what it would like to have a penis instead of a pussy, but its no damned good when it comes to supplying real solutions to real problems, like how to make sure civilisation is kept running so all the air heads can have thoughts like these instead of ‘why hasn’t my turd flushed down the toilet today?’

Ideally you have this muppet show of a political farce where unreal issues are discussed with all the gravitas of a led zeppelin with uranium ballast, whilst engineers get on with actually keeping things running.
But now when they start fiddling with energy production and making it into a political football, and profiteering on the back of it, that is too far gentlemen, and you have to stop that.

It’s not about science. It’s about public consciousness and the view the public has of the political, media and corporate class and how much they trust and believe in them and what they decide to do about it.

We are losing faith in our ‘leaders’. And they have only themselves to blame. The next questions is what shall we do about it?

April 20, 2019 8:11 pm

All is not lost. Many people on the ground don’t believe in CAGW. And the world is moving politically and demographically Conservative and sceptical. The ranks of the sceptics are certainly swelling thanks in part to all the extreme left wing politics and thanks to the facts on the ground. We are also, with the Internet, going through a similar situation to the invention of the printing press. Then, as now, authoritative sources were displaced and replaced by more reliable localised sources. The Internet allows the arguments to be made by anyone and the facts to speak for themselves. Sure a lot of money has been wasted. But, hopefully, it will be a lesson learned for future generations – “granddad you believed in that nonsense?”.

April 20, 2019 8:14 pm

Unfortunately influential entertainers like Howard Stern have a large audience believing the hoax …if you challenge Howard, you are belittled and essentially “toast”. Of course, Howard is one of biggest hypocrites out there when he by being a multi millionaire must be chauffeured to work (only a few blocks) and everywhere else in a gas guzzling SUV and owns several large and inefficient homes, especially one out in the Hamptons on Long Island which would be in the crosshairs of “climate change”.
Therefore, our society is lost.

Ryan Welch
April 20, 2019 8:31 pm

Marshall McLuhan famously said, “The Medium is the Message.” What that means is that the medium you use to convey information influences people more than the information transmitted.

The truth is only losing because we are not using the best medium. While I have not invested 50 years into a losing battle as Mr. Ball laments, I have been involved long enough to recognize that skeptics are great at using math, words, and graphs on paper and in text on websites, but we are not great at producing videos. Generation X and Millennials watch videos to get their information, they don’t read dry blogs where people discuss the error bars of a graph or interpolation of data points. The don’t read about retracted papers that achieved their political goals regardless of the bed science that produced the paper.

If we are to retain freedom and defend truth against those who admit they are willing to lie to achieve an agenda, then we must “out-G the G” (Col. Hackworth). We must out-guerrilla the guerrilla. We must do what they are doing first and better, and we have an advantage, because we have the truth and the truth always wins……eventually.

We must saturate the media with daily videos debunking their lies daily and hit them first with daily videos that forces them to respond to us. We must take the initiative and one we have it, never give it back until their agenda for power disguised as a call to “save the planed” is utterly defeated.

That is why I am back in college at the age of 53 to obtain a degree in mass media. Once I graduate, in December, I plan on using my new skills to turn the tide against the steady stream of lies and doomsday predictions. I am fully committed, the lives of my children and grandchildren depend on it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ryan Welch
April 21, 2019 7:33 am

“Once I graduate, in December, I plan on using my new skills to turn the tide against the steady stream of lies and doomsday predictions. I am fully committed, the lives of my children and grandchildren depend on it.”

Good for you and us, Ryan. Thanks for giving us a glimpse of your fighting spirit! 🙂

April 20, 2019 9:35 pm

I totally disagree.

The disparity between CAGW’s global warming model projections vs. reality (UAH6.0/Radiosonde data), and ALL other predictions on: Sea Level Rise, ocean acidification, extreme weather frequency/intensity, Polar land/sea ice disappearance, etc., are hilariously devoid from reality.

Things will only get worse for the CAGW Delusion as the PDO/AMO/NAO are all in (or soon will be) their respective 30-year cool cycles. Moreover, a 50-year Grand Solar Minimum event just started, which will likely add to global cooling.

Within 5 years, actual global temp anomalies will be so devoid from CAGW projections, the entire CAGW scam will be laughed at.

Once the inane CAGW hypothesis is finally tossed on to the trash heap of history, the blowback against the Left will be epic for wasting $10’s of trillions on the CAGW Hoax for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

April 20, 2019 9:39 pm

Dr Ball
Don’t go
We need you………

April 20, 2019 9:45 pm

Alas, I think Dr. Ball is exactly right. Playing with graphs and numbers, however scientifically correct, is not going “to win hearts and minds” of the poorly educated, emotionally motivated people who want to think of themselves as being better than hard-working achievers just because they are “right-thinking progressives.”

Until radical green policies would result in a real, obvious social catastrophe, it is futile to expect that these people would understand the huge danger of the environmentalists’ lies. As a Russian proverb goes, “a peasant doesn’t cross himself until a thunder strikes.”

Wim Röst
April 20, 2019 9:55 pm

Dr. Tim Ball: “I want to help people bridge the gap between the false world of government and the real world.”

WR: That is what is needed to be done. But it is a difficult task as well. As ’emotions’ rule the masses nobody is listening, nobody is arguing. Present behavior is like the behavior of horses in a herd of horses that went crazy: no horse is using his brains anymore, not even his eyes. Every horse just does do ‘what other horses do’. Emotions rule.

I watched several times this video of horses that went mad after only one started. People’s frightened reactions helped: it became a mess. See:

This craziness is what the masses are in now. It is all emotions.

We need to tell the real story about the Earth’s climate. About how climate really works. So far you did a wonderful job. I am sure you will find a good way to continue.

April 20, 2019 10:02 pm

Dear Dr Ball,

I have read and saved many of your postings over the years.
Do not underestimate your contribution. You have enabled me to argue the sceptical case and win frequently.

I am most grateful for your wise contributions.

I have one last request. I think there is a need for a brief guide to climate change and a related more detailed guide for those that want more. Such a publication could be distributed easily and might open the eyes of believers.

I suggest you enlist readers to help in the structure and edit the text.

If it would help you I can make a donation towards your time.

Warm Regards, you have already made a difference!!

April 20, 2019 11:28 pm

Do what you can, when you can, if you can, within reason. Remember your family, and set priorities accordingly. That said, your integrity, sacrifice, and courage are noted. The desire to share knowledge and skill is a worthy endeavor. Good luck to you. Good luck to us. May the observations, replications, and deductions in a scientific frame of reference prevail over diverse interests clamoring for capital, control. and leverage.

Izaak Walton
April 20, 2019 11:35 pm

It would appear that no one here seems to have noticed that Tim Ball has claimed that
85% of you are too stupid to understand the physics of climate change. Why am I not

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Izaak Walton
April 21, 2019 7:43 am

“It would appear that no one here seems to have noticed that Tim Ball has claimed that
85% of you are too stupid to understand the physics of climate change.”

We didn’t notice because Tim Ball didn’t say that.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 21, 2019 10:08 pm

He stated that “a major reason is the division of that community into approximately 15% who are competent and comfortable in science and 85% who are not”. Which is the same thing as saying
that 85% if skeptics are incompetent and uncomfortable in science. So if you would prefer to be
called incompetent rather than stupid then that is fine with me.

April 20, 2019 11:45 pm

Thank Dr Ball for all that you have contributed. I imagine there must be plenty of people you have inspired to pick up the torch and continue the fight. As many of the commenters rightly point out, the rhetoric is currently at fever pitch. This may actually suggest we are closer to an end than we know. “It is darkest before the dawn” is a fitting quote.

The darkness just before the dawn,
Gives no reason for hope forlorn.
Facing off my westing shroud,
Blue faith cuts though my coldest cloud.
The warmth, the faintest of all glows,
Warns off the darkness from my foe’s.
Stay firm, in spite of all the fears,
For those will fall, as darkness clears.

Luc Ozade
April 20, 2019 11:45 pm

Dr Ball, please don’t throw in the towel. Changing the minds of so many was never going to be easy. But your contribution over the years has been incalculable. You cannot know how many you have helped to persuade. What you said about restricting your future posts to your own website carries little merit.

I believe it is every sceptics duty to stand firm and spread the truth about AGW as far and as wide as they possibly can and for as long as they have breath in their bodies. To simply throw one’s hands in the air and say “Well, I did all I could and made no difference” is not an option. Just think – how many people you reach on WUWT (384 million people, and counting) and compare that with the stats for your own website.

With every year that passes (and no significant change takes place in climate-related matters) is a year nearer to the public slowly realising how much they have been hoodwinked. I believe we ARE winning and things are coming to a head, as the alarmists get ever more desperate.

I reiterate previous comments I have made in thanking you for your so-valuable contributions but fervently plead for you to continue. With your credentials, what you say carries enormous weight PLUS, I might add, a responsibility to never give up. Thank you.

Rod Evans
April 20, 2019 11:54 pm

It is only through people such as you, people with credentials in climate science, people with credentials in physics and the scientific method, that the lies and false scares pushed into the mainstream media and promoted by the main stream media can be challenged.
Do not underestimate the growing awareness of what is real science versus what is faux science. You and so many others who have not been prepared to be silenced by the nonsense of Mann Made Climate change are winning the arguments. You are winning and true science is the victor. The pseudo science pushed by the Al Gores, Hansens, Attenboroughs and others supported by the public purse are losing and they know they are, which is why the uptick in street demo’s by so called Green activists is happening.

Do not stop what you are doing Tim, the world needs good men to stand up and not be silenced. We need to have faith in true science. The political dimension will always exist, and yes we will have to get more political but not at the expense of science.

Reply to  Rod Evans
April 21, 2019 10:00 am

Well said Rod !!!

April 21, 2019 1:04 am

Nature will back us up, Dr Ball. We will be vindicated with the passage of time.

April 21, 2019 1:26 am

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” HL Mencken.

It’s no surpise that Climate Change became an urgent issue for politicians in the 90s, after the Berlin Wall fell.
With no more Red Scare to keep us in line, they produced the Green Scare, like a rabbit out of a hat.

April 21, 2019 3:55 am

Dear Tim, I used to be one of the crazy environmentalists falling for all predictions of doom. It was through you appearances on James Corbett’s reports that I began questioning my assumptions until I was certain I had been purposefully fooled. When I now present data to people showing the bollocks of it all, people inevitably start asking “why would they lie?”. I answer by talking about the Rockerfeller sponsorship of the UN, the Club of rome, the cfr, the trilateral commission, Maurice Strong and the UNFCCC and how the IPCC prior to 1992 didn’t actually support the idea that climate change was dangerous or man made. I tell people to look into agenda 21, agenda 2030 and visions 2050. They get it when they have a long enough attention span to read me. We indeed need to talk about motive. Conspiracy theorist is a weaponized term that should be a badge of honour showing you are capable of critical thinking. Much love, no effort is vain.

April 21, 2019 6:36 am

There is only one thing for it, go on the attack and make the Man Climate proponents defend their position.

Man Made Climate impact has now been around for 30 years. It seems a week cannot go by without a claim that a weather event has been impacted by man. Before I give credence to Climate model future projections I want my graph for the last 30 years that displays man’s impact.

The data is in, I want to see the graph with its changes over the last 30 years, be it temperature, rainfall, weather events, or sea rise. AND the graph to display the apportioned component caused or influenced by man.

If Climate scientists can confidently project 20+ years hence there should be no problem in displaying a graph clearly displaying man’s impact on our climate for the last 30 years.

If we are to pay for ameliorating climate change then I want my man impacting climate graph!

April 21, 2019 6:36 am

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled” – Mark Twain.

Michael in Dublin
April 21, 2019 7:33 am

If researchers and companies receiving monies to reduce average temperatures had to sign an undertaking that they would refund every penny when they cannot shown real cost effective results, would they be prepared to do so? If not then they should receive no funding.

April 21, 2019 8:20 am

Yes, Dr. Ball, I feel the same way. Often dinner-time discussion about the CAGW deception ends with my companions looking at me as if I just told them I’m commuting to Mars in a shiny new spaceship. Confronting them head-on with facts doesn’t seem to work. Perhaps a more subtle approach, like saying on a cold day that some global warming would be nice.

I don’t know. It is very frustrating.

ferd berple
April 21, 2019 8:56 am

Dr Ball, take heart. There is nothing unusual about false beliefs. Eugenics and Hitler were at one time very popular.

Simply accept with good humour that god remains the biggest practical joker in the universe.

ferd berple
April 21, 2019 9:13 am

People want solar panels and windmills to work because they don’t like paying $100 every time they go to the gas pump.

This doesn’t mean they believe in climate change. They are simply looking for a way out, and global warming advocates announce every day that green tech will save the day.

But one only need look at the shift from liberal to conservative governments in Canada to understand that the underlying belief is economical not environmental.

Pamela Gray
April 21, 2019 9:30 am

Hmmmm. Just because one can’t exact another to change to ones point of view does not mean one should stop making intelligent conversation about it. I wonder if the esteemed post author laments his inability to more broadly affect solar discussion as well as AGW topics.

I will have to admit my dissatisfaction with a number of solar centered posts that was lacking in scholarship and thus quite unconvinced by them.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
April 21, 2019 9:34 am


Harry Passfield
April 21, 2019 9:39 am

A bit late to comment but, this struck a chord:

“It is critical to remember that you are asking people to believe that a small group of people managed to deceive the world into believing that a trace gas (0.04% of the total atmosphere) was changing the entire climate because of humans.”

It’s a lot worse than that, Tim: this small group of people have managed to deceive the world on the principle that (maybe) only a tiny fraction of that trace gas – the bit ‘they’ say is down to ‘man’ – is responsible. So it’s not 0.04% of atmosphere, it’s more like 0.004% that is responsible (perhaps, maybe, could be, probably not).

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Harry Passfield
April 21, 2019 12:32 pm

One of my children, an engineer, says that climate alarmists have given no satisfactory answers to any of the key questions posed by unconvinced engineers. However, they often attack and belittle those questioning them without even giving an answer. Lazy journalists then publish their hogwash without any critical examination of their assertions.

The answer to Dr Ball’s dilemma lies in teaching our children the importance not only of asking questions but finding answers using careful reasoning and logic with close observation – something that has been woefully neglected in modern Western education.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 21, 2019 1:35 pm

Michael, a facility I learned in my professional life was to ask, ‘Why?’ – to the seventh. It can be quite enlightening when the need arose.

Gem Mayo
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 21, 2019 3:59 pm

I believe the biggest problem for the proponents of the Climate Change theory is the statement, now used mainly by politicians who know nothing about science, THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED! (TSIS).
This is their Achilles Heel, because it represents the utter corruption of science by ideology. Corrupted science is a Real threat to humanity. TSIS is an abdication of the Scientific Method and threatens to return science to its 15th century status. So, don’t get caught up in arguments you cannot win with people who adhere to TSIS with true believer’s religious zeal. Start selling TSIS as the Real threat, because IT’S TRUE that it is a major threat. Do you want the medicines your sick child will be administered to save its life to have emerged for a scientific community that placed more value on ideology than scientific rigour? Remind scientists who Stalin’s Lysenko was.
‘Tee-Sis’ now has a name and could be turned into a potent resource in the struggle to defend science and expose the current climate madness that’s scaring the world to death.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Gem Mayo
April 22, 2019 1:28 pm

We have various sciences with well defined areas of study like biology, chemistry, geology, oceanography etc.

Climate science is strictly speaking not one of these. It depends on inputs from various sciences. It draws from geography, physics, chemistry, oceanography, meteorology and to a lesser extent on others and not to mention how indispensable mathematics, statistics and computer science are.

When someone claims to be completely knowledgeable as a climate scientist, that person is misleading others . One may be clued up in organic chemistry in a way one cannot be in the study of climate – there are simply too many disciplines involved.

Wiki also misleads by its gross oversimplification: “Climatology . . . or climate science is the scientific study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.” That is precisely why people whose expertise is in any of the above named disciplines is able to point out flaws in many of the claims of climate scientists.

Not only is climate a very complicated subject but so too is the study of climate.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 29, 2019 4:40 pm

Not only is the climate very complicated any computer model must be equally complicated. As a professor of computer science I “know” that every program (of sufficient complexity) has a bug. The shortest program that had a bug was one instruction long (it took two instructions to accomplish the desired task).
Computer models are subject to GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out)

The climate models reflect the opinion of the designer of said models. If one scientist is confident that a small increase in CO2 will be a magnified by feedback his model will be wrong.
If the input data has been incorrectly adjusted, the model will be wrong.
If the models ignore a class of data as insignificant when it has a larger effect, the model will be wrong.

The largest problem is the hubris to think that human activity could affect the climate at all. We cannot control the Sun, we cannot control cosmic rays, we cannot control the major greenhouse gas — water vapor, we cannot control volcanoes, we cannot effect ocean temperatures since water is very slow to heat and very slow to cool, we cannot change the fact that cold water can contain more CO2 while hot water can contain less.
Climate changes over centuries, shorter cycles than that are weather cycles. (El Niño, La Niña is an example.)

April 21, 2019 9:49 am

If you, and all of us, stop speaking out, there is no hope at all.

Claude Harvey
April 21, 2019 10:07 am

Welcome to the history of the world!

April 21, 2019 10:28 am

Tim, a few thoughts:

First, history moves in slow motion. It takes decades, sometimes centuries for the efforts of the few are recognized for professing the truth when so many were profiting from the lies. You can’t conclude that you’ve made no difference today. 50 years from now when the madness has ended, your name will be mentioned frequently in the history books as they document the rise and fall of a false narrative.

Second, you HAVE made a difference. When you were writing mostly about the science, many of us learned valuable knowledge from you that we used to persuade others. Neither the history books or yourself will ever know how many people your worked convinced, but I think it is a much larger number than you can imagine.

Third, we ARE winning. The politicians may hew the alarmist line, but the bulk of them know the real truth. That’s why they push green plans, but the moment the harm to the economy becomes dire, they find a way to quietly back down.

Keep writing, please. But ignore the politics. Teach the science. Facts and the inexorable pace of history will paint you as one of the heros.

David Blenkinsop
April 21, 2019 10:33 am

With a Federal election coming up later this year in my own country, Canada, I suppose I should endorse the importance of defeating the current AGW-maniacs federally. However, there is something of a more global nature that I think is key (and I’m not sure if any leading Canadian politicians have both the nerve and the influence to really help that much with it), and *that* is the ultimate defeat of the Paris Accord globally.

Famously, the current US President doesn’t support the Paris Accord, but the US still sends representatives to the meetings, so the Accord is definitely still a “thing”. Lately, I understand the Accord has fallen on hard times with some oil producing nations being basically unwilling to abide by any detailed rules set out under the Accord, but well, I mean, there it is, the Accord is still “there”.

Now, if my perception of things is correct, world level accords on climate/global warming, have always been a case of the “tail wagging the dog,” in relation to how many people in government have been willing to distort the climate science. The whole thing started really with the old Kyoto Accord (or even earlier), with the failed Kyoto being replaced by the newer and “better” (and more unfair, more stupid, etc.) Paris deal.

If this is the kind of thing that Dr. Ball means by his renewed emphasis on politics over pure science, then that much does make sense. We’ll know we’ve won the issue when the Paris Accord is abandoned, *and no fair any sneaky replacements*! Even biased lefty outlets like our own CBC here in Canada would likely cease to badger on about this if there were no great world agreement to defend, *and* they might even get some genuinely skeptical and/or balanced discussion going too, if there were no such political “baby” to protect!

One thing that does puzzle me a bit is the extent to which the globalist/marxist way of thinking seems to have been made into a religion of sorts. Some people will give all kinds of lip service to trendy ideas, it seems, but when it comes right down to it do most of the leftist people we hear from really believe that the earth is in quite that much danger, etc? My suspicion is that without the focus of a great Accord “shining from above”, the whole AGW thing is going to crumble, while hopefully encouraging some skepticism on environmental issues generally.

April 21, 2019 10:47 am

Persistence and patience are the only tools we have.
Most folks are ill-equipped to parse the climate change math and models. So they hear the authorities and compliant media and rely on trust, and their faith in that trust. The challenge is that the cycle to prove that their faith is misplaced takes decades. Nevertheless, agnosticism can come much earlier when it becomes clear that a) the apocalypse isn’t coming and b) the cost to avoid the apocalypse is exorbitant.
a) takes time, but b) can be proven by experiment. So let the experiments go first … California, Germany, Australia … but press to hold back elsewhere. Encourage the experiments to go whole hog. 100% renewables? Sure, go for it. May as well test the whole equation. It will rapidly become clear that the steps to full compliance are hugely expensive. That is the way to open minds and make them receptive to alternative thinking. They may not understand climate math, but they sure understand money math.

Gary Pearse
April 21, 2019 11:38 am

I disagree that sceptics have failed. Why, for example, do they pay so much attention to us and are so desperate to to get rid of us if no one is listening. WUWT is a must read by the AGW Team. Donald Trump was reached by us and he pulled the plug on the Paris agreement and the agreement is self destructing. Even the EU is self destructing. Donald Trump types are winning elections and filling parliaments with MPs.

Oh we are experiencing a crescendo of hysterical reports on the end of the world, tears and ugliness by climateers who are losing their grip, children’s marches, outlandish research results… all chicken-with-head-cut-off gymnastics in the throes.

Nothing of significance will be done about climate. Trump will get elected again, new EU defections from the climate industrial complex under anti-elite governments are in the works, Germany is switching to natural gas following Trumps economic miracle. The main climate change will be a thinning of climate science ranks, institutions, faculties, departments and a lot of segueing of these types out into neutral and even sceptical positions. It’s game over and they know it.

April 21, 2019 12:04 pm

The battle has already been lost in California. Watch what happens here to see what is coming to the rest of the country eventually. The cost of living here is beyond the means of anybody but the rich because of environmental regulation, many of which haven’t even taken effect yet, but are legislated and coming in the near future. Energy prices are the highest in the nation, taxes (there are too many to list) on everything you can imagine (with more on the way), and the most stringent building codes that prevent anybody except the rich from building or living here. The largest population on welfare (1/3 of the entire U.S.) of any state, the largest population of homeless of any state, the largest population of street poopers (San Francisco) anywhere. Nuclear power is near dead (the last plant is scheduled to shut down in the next few years). This is the future.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  RJ Hendrickson
April 21, 2019 2:01 pm

I’m a Cali also and you are so correct. The Facebook postings of our new governor, doing exactly what most of the voters want, should make very clear that the battle has been lost (100% renewable are you kidding)?….but maybe not the war. Perhaps the PG&E bankruptcy combined with Trump’s soon to be commissioned Climate Commission will be a wake up call. Otherwise the PG&E bankruptcy will be trivial compared to the inevitable future State bankruptcy.

David Dirkse
April 21, 2019 12:51 pm

an attempt to understand climate activism

April 21, 2019 2:42 pm

Re. Tom ABBOT, April 21. Tom how other than Saul later to be known
as Saint Paul suffering a stroke , can you account for such a complete
change in his thinking.

He was a very strict believer in the orthodox Hebrew faith and he was
prosecuting the followers of the Jesus cult, which while only a very minor
variation from the very strict practices of the pure Hebrew faith, was
considered to be a threat to that established faith as it was practised by the
High Priests of the Temple.

Then he does in effect a 180 degrees change in his thinking, and comes up
with a story which was the very opposite of that as practised by the
High Priests.

There is a mention of how Saul later met Jesus’ brothers who violently
disagreed with his version of the Jesus story. So violent that Saul ram to
a Roman soldier and said that he Saul was a Roman citizen and asked to
be protected from the angry brothers.

I rest my case as I used to say.


Steve Skinner
April 21, 2019 3:01 pm

The yellow vest of France and the Brexit party in the UK give me some hope.

Dr. Tim, never give up the fight.

Dr Robin Browne
April 21, 2019 3:39 pm

Dr Tim, I admire the effort that you have made, but please don’t give up, just take a break. The Earth will eventually prove you correct by its refusal to behave as the climate enthusiasts predict. I am about the same age as you, so please take my advice – relax, smell the roses, enjoy a great evening of your life span, and with just a little good fortune you will see this matter settle itself.

April 21, 2019 4:31 pm

To OLD GEORGE, April 20 the. . George Atheists have in my
opinion one big advantage over believers in a faith. Not having to carry
the baggage of other ways of thinking its easier to search for and
hopefully to seek out and to attempt to find the truth.

So please accept our right to think in a different way to your way of

Regarding your comments about Nuclear, well of course Nuclear is the
answer, not because of no CO2, but its simply the best way to produce lots
of energy cheaply.

But just as with Hydro the Greens are violently against the most Green
forms of energy, which to me clearly shows that their long term goal is to
destroy the Western countries economies .


Ian Hills
April 21, 2019 4:38 pm

It’s a big business cartel. You need carbon offsets to make anything, and there are only so many for sale. So as population and demand rise the shortage of manufactures will cause high prices. And whenever the price of offsets goes too high only big firms will be able to buy them and make things. For high prices. So global warming is a smokescreen for a big business cartel.

Joz Jonlin
April 21, 2019 10:32 pm

Dr. Ball, I know you’re probably tired of the fight. I have no doubt you feel a certain kinship to Sisyphus, and I’m sorry for that. Please understand that you have a voice that most of us don’t possess. You may feel like your voice is too small and ineffectual, but it isn’t. You may think you haven’t made a difference, but you absolutely have. I’ve read your words avidly over the years as is likely of regular WUWT readers. There’s no way to know or measure the effect you’ve had on people, but I have no doubt that your efforts will return void. Rest for a bit, then come out fighting once again. I’ll leave you with a quote from one of my heroes, the ever loquacious Winston Churchill.

“Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

Joz Jonlin
Reply to  Joz Jonlin
April 21, 2019 10:34 pm

“will NOT return void”

Sometimes I hate that there’s no edit capabilities.

April 22, 2019 6:42 am

The problem is not the Earth’s climate. The problem is the solution we are attempting. Humanity cannot possibly lower atmospheric CO2 quantitatively because the amounts are way too large. Just ONE ppmv of oxidized carbon is almost eight BILLION tons. Don’t believe it? Go to CDIAC, “Frequently asked Global Change Questions”. Today’s CCS negative emission technologies are working with MILLIONS. Lower one ppmv? Hundreds of years, astronomical costs.

Why these simple observations have been ignored is a mystery.

Coach Springer
April 22, 2019 6:54 am

As timeless as witch doctors and village elders.

Bert Corbett
April 22, 2019 7:01 am

Dr. Ball,
You wrote “I failed to convince the skeptics that without explanation of the MOTIVE, people would not listen to their critiques and warnings.”
I believe you need to look back farther than 50 years to explain this failure.
Even before Darwin began to publish his work, there was an undercurrent of thought that God could not have created the world as He said, out of nothing and by the power of His word. People began to look for other explanations and Science was beginning to develop thoughts on Naturalism and Evolution that could explain Origin without the need for God. Science became the authority and society accepted these two explanations of beginnings, even though they are neither physically nor mathematically possible. Very similar to today’s acceptance of AWG.
With God no longer the source of Origin, He became unnecessary as a moral lawgiver. Truth became relative and morality was left to the desire of the moment. Hence, lies and deceit have become commonplace and they are a strong force in shaping today’s beliefs.
That is why you’ve made no progress in 50 years and why it’s unlikely that your new direction will bring the results you’re hoping for.

Reply to  Bert Corbett
April 22, 2019 7:25 am

Bert…I disagree. When the public, the politicians, the policy-makers realize and accept the true immensity of the solution they are currently seeking …the quantitative lowering of atmospheric CO2, then a new direction will be the only sensible thing to do. Admitting that the current plan to remove carbon is misguided and impossible, is what is likely to be difficult to hope for. A huge turnabout in thinking about the management of climate?

Paul Penrose
April 22, 2019 9:55 am

The best answer to the problem of climate hysteria and attempts at global governance (aka tyranny), is to get rid of the UN. It does far more harm at this point than any good it ever did/attempted to do.

April 22, 2019 1:29 pm

I am not good at convincing people of my position on global warming. So, I, too have given up. This doesn’t mean I don’t some some influence on relatives and friends that do (or did) have a strong belief. The difference is that I don’t burden them with my facts. I just <b<ask questions:
1) Why do green house keepers so often pump CO2 into their green houses? What level of CO2 do they like to maintain on those green houses? Why would they be trying to kill or limit the growth of the plants therein? Don’t ask me – look it up on your smart phone.
2) The Jurassic Age was so cool! Gigantic beasts everywhere, and lush tropical forests. They must have had really low levels of CO2. What does your smart phone have to say about CO2 levels and temperatures then? Once they have the answer to that, wonder why that combination didn’t result in thermal runaway.
3) If they accept that plants require CO2 (not a given until Q1 is explored), what is the lowest level of CO2 required to support plant life? Is it worrisome that our current CO2 levels are so near the bottom end of the scale compared to the Jurassic? I don’t remember. Look it up on your smart phone.

I supply none of the answers. That would be preaching. I don’t get attacked. I don’t even ask them to tell me what they learned. If they tell me, I just respond with a slight frown and a “Hm”. I sometimes recommend Wikipedia despite their support of AGW. Wiki still provides enough data to shake one’s confidence in the AGW “facts”. I don’t have to win the argument. In fact, when we go our separate ways, I’m sure they haven’t changed their minds. I just want to make them think. And I have been shocked. People are not as stupid as I often think. (Politicians, reporters, and climate scientists excepted.)

I am sometimes blown away when I overhear them later asking the same questions of their friends. You have to be careful asking such questions of children. Remember their grades and peer group require adherence to AGW theology.

Winning this argument should not be the overt goal. People don’t like to lose or be wrong. If they develop their own conclusion based on new knowledge, they tend to become aggressive proponents of their new insights. I don’t get any credit (it was their research) and I don’t need it.

Reply to  KaliforniaKook
April 23, 2019 5:58 pm

Kook… “Winning this argument should not be the overt goal. People don’t like to lose or be wrong. If they develop their own conclusion based on new knowledge, they tend to become aggressive proponents of their new insights.”

That is only likely to be true if their salary, their livelihood, their family, depends on them NOT losing their job. Those who are retired or self-employed are exceptions. Upton Sinclair….“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! ”

But, if the new knowledge brings new insights, with new conclusions and new direction…as Tim desires, it might create a dramatic shift. The risk is not the climate, it is the solution being promoted, an intensive CO2 mitigation, technological capture-and-store, which is impossibly large, lengthy and expensive. A new direction, a new paradigm is the only viable solution. Do the math.

Neal Heidler
Reply to  Broadlands
April 25, 2019 7:48 am

If we use your reasoning, EVERY sort of professional who is paid to do highly technical work that lay people don’t have much of a clue about, and who has an work-related views or opinions that are somehow related to getting their salary is suspect. “They’ll say anything to keep their job” is so GD dopey it’s hard to believe you people keep trotting out this nonsense.

Brain surgeon:
“We need to operate on your aneurysm immediately”
“This is standard practice in this kind of situation.”
“You’re just following the recommendation of a corrupt status quo! You’re just trying to make money for the hospital and yourself. I don’t need surgery. I know how I feel.”

“We need to get your kid’s vaccinations up to date”
“You get commission money from the pharmaceutical company that makes those vaccines and charge for those services, don’t you? Don’t you know about thimerisol?? Forget it!”

This sort of thinking could get you killed.
Skepticism is fine, but here you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ll venture that you are expert in none of climate modelling, paleo-climatology, the economics of green energy vs. coal or nuclear power, etc., etc. None!

In your case, trusting the experts is a good impulse. Try it!

Reply to  Neal Heidler
April 25, 2019 11:44 am

Neal… It doesn’t matter what the experts say about our dismal future, unless we act now to do something. Just one ppmv of oxidized carbon is almost eight billion tonnes to capture and safely store. . CCS negative emission technologies are required and they operate in the millions when billions are needed. I’ll venture you didn’t know that? Let us know how long it will take to return to a “safe” 350 ppm…now at 60 ppmv. that’s 60 times 8 gigatons. Do the math.

April 22, 2019 2:55 pm

When municipal governments and even schoolchildren start taking positions on a complex scientific issue, it should be absolutely clear that popular delusions and the madness of crowds are mightily at work. The only remaining question is: cuo bono?

While a notorious craze a few centuries ago benefited tulip growers and some savvy speculators at the expense of the small investor, the current AGW scare benefits only politicians and their fund-grabbing lackeys at the expense of the ordinary people the power-seeking globalists pretend to represent. What is different now is that the public is risking not only its investments, but its livelihood. The habitability of the planet will remain just fine. Ultimately what’s being threatened, along with public sanity, is our very freedom as an advanced civilization.

Dr. Ball is quite correct: motive is the key. I only add: the hypocrisy is unprecedented.

April 22, 2019 4:35 pm

Re .Kalifornia Kook, April 22 nd. a very good comment. Just nibble
away at their previous belief about Warming and climate change. Two
suggestions, the properties of CO2, in that it does not store heat, but simply
re -radiates it.

Second point out that when someone says that windmills are now cheaper
than coal, ask (A) if so why do they still require sub sadies, and (B) then
why is it necessary to force the fossil fuel generators utilities to accept
this varying supply of electricity, and to also act as a back up power supply
to the windmills when there e is no or little wind. That means two power
systems hence twice the price of electricity to the user.

Point out that is why we are all complaining about the high cost of living
, as its not just your own electricity bills, its effect is right through all of
the businesses, so they have to raise their prices.

Go for the “”Hip pocket nerve””.


Paul Rossiter
April 22, 2019 6:34 pm

Dr Ball, sounds to me like you are becoming weary of a lone fight against the stupidity of AGW and this is completely understandable given the enormous effort you have made over the years. Is there a possibility of sharing the load through support of one or existing organizations like the Heartland Institute, following Tony Watts, or some other? Or maybe this is already the case and you have just had enough?

April 23, 2019 7:27 am

This article, coming from such a consistently
good writer, is too pessimistic, for no logical reason.

It is counterproductive for the cause of good science,
because “giving up” in the fight against climate junk science,
guarantees a loss.

Dr. Ball, you’ve done FAR more than the typical
skeptic to advance real science, and to point out
that “climate change” is junk science in support
of a large expansion of government power.

You’ve earned “retirement” from writing about
this subject, at age 80 — I only hope I live that
long, and still think clearly, which you certainly
still do.

But don’t let this pessimistic article be the last
one you leave here at WUWT — ask the website
owner to delete it, and leave us with many dozens
of consistently good articles in the archives.

I hope your pessimism is not from character attacks
by hostile leftists.

I’ve been writing a climate science blog since 2014,
summarizing articles and studies I read, as a hobby
( I started reading climate science in 1997 )

I only wish leftists would
character attack me !

But they character attack only those people
who have been most successful at
refuting their science fraud ( and exposing the
underlying leftist politics, which you do better
than anyone else whose articles are here ).

Character attacks are like “war medals”
for climate change skeptics, so you
may now be a “three-star general”
of the skeptics !

Of course it’s almost impossible to change
a leftist mind on climate change — that’s
true of all their beliefs.

It would be easier to teach algebra
to your cat !
But think of all the good news we’ve had
on climate change in the past 15 years:

Imagine it is early 2003, and I told you there
would be no global warming for the next
15 years (or less warming than the measurement
margin of error) — that would have been a
wonderful dream of any climate change skeptic
in early 2003.

Well, it actually happened !
And how about only +0.6 degrees C.
of global warming since the age of
fossil fuel CO2 emissions “began” in
about 1940 ( + 0.077 degrees per decade )
– a warming rate of only 1/4 of the
average computer game predicted
warming rate !
Surveys find that Americans rarely
include climate change in their
lists of the top ten problems they face !
And I’ve saved the best news for last:
Imagine in early 2018 that skeptics hatched
a devious plan to convince Democrats to
propose radical government mandates,
equivalent to a Communist Manifesto,
to be delivered by a complete dingbat !

Well, that happened too !

The Green New Deal, delivered by
Alexandria Occasionally Coherent,
is so ridiculous, infeasible
and extreme, that it will
become an albatross
around the neck of many
Democrats running for
office in 2010.

YOU may be pessimistic that
“climate change” is a lost cause.

But I am optimistic that the lack of
warming since early 2003,
and the almost insane “Green Ordeal”,
will significantly hurt the
climate change “religion”.

And I’ll do whatever I can to help
refute the science fraud,
as long as I’m still breathing !

My climate science blog:

C Earl Jantzi
April 23, 2019 5:18 pm

At a news conference [22Jan2015] in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework be adopted Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to DESTROY CAPITALISM. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said . Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will at change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors DOTcom/ibd-editorials/021015the Paris climate

IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” “This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, anymore.” http://www.nzzDOTch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

The Buffett Rule
The billionaire was even more explicit about his goal of reducing his company’s tax payments. “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” he said. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
Think about that one. Mr. Buffett says it makes no economic sense to build wind farms without a tax credit, which he gladly uses to reduce his company’s tax payments to the Treasury. So political favors for the wind industry induce a leading U.S. company to misallocate its scarce investment dollars for an uneconomic purpose. Berkshire and its billionaire shareholder get a tax break and the feds get less revenue, which must be made up by raising tax rates on millions of other Americans who are much less well-heeled than Mr. Buffett.
This is precisely the kind of tax favoritism for the wealthy that Mr. Romney’s tax reform would have reduced, and that other tax reformers want to stop. Too bad Mr. Buffett didn’t share this rule with voters in 2012.
From the WSJ

Poland Bans Wind Turbines in 17 years
Now we have the nation of Poland examining the health damages of Wind turbines. They have discovered that the low frequency noise given off by wind turbines, affects cellular development and mimics heart problems. They are going to force REMOVAL of ALL wind turbines in 17 years! Check this out, and read to the end and check the comments of Sommer, and watch the youtube video for a real education in the subject.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights