Global Climate Intelligence Group founded

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The Global Climate Intelligence Group, whose objective is to put the science back into climate science, comprises scientists, professionals and researchers from many nations, has already attracted some 500 signatures for what began life scant weeks ago as the European Climate Declaration.

The group, and the declaration, are the brainchild of Professor Guus Berkhout, emeritus professor of Geophysics in the Delft University of Technology. Professor Berkhout is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

clip_image002

Professor Guus Berkhout

Among the luminaries who have signed the declaration is Professor Václav Klaus, former President of the Czech Republic, who is known to many of us as a formidable speaker at Heartland conferences and at meetings of the World Federation of Scientists (and, in Britain, at Brexit Party rallies, to the great delight of his audiences).

Professor Richard Lindzen, the world’s foremost climate scientist, is also a signatory, and is the Group’s Ambassador to the United States of America.

Professors Reynald du Berger, Jeffrey Foss, Ingemar Nordin, Alberto Prestinzini, Benoît Rittaud and Fritz Vahrenholt are the Ambassadors to Francophone Canada, Anglophone Canada, Sweden, Italy, France and Germany respectively. These are heavy-hitters.

The declaration says –

There is no climate emergency

A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted

The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and insects, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

The text, together with the list of signatories, is at https://t.co/Pz7ZtsMOYV?amp=1. The signatories are prominent scientists from a wide range prominent group of scientists with an unprecedentedly wide range of disciplines, indispensable in addressing the climate question.

If you agree with the declaration and would like to sign it, please write in the first instance to me, monckton [at] mail.com, and enclose your resumé. I shall pass your name to the academic council, which will then contact you.

Ideas for the Global Climate Intelligence Group’s future program of work include an online, open-access Journal of Corrections to publish learned papers, peer-reviewed by qualified members of the Group, that will put right the often erroneous and unsound science published in the pal-review journals of climate “science”.

Members of the Group are also considering hosting national and international scientific conferences, providing speakers and lecturers willing to balance the one-sided and militantly wrong pseudo-science that now holds sway, providing articles for those of the mainstream media who – unlike the unspeakable BBC – are willing to honor their obligation of giving both sides of every story, making documentaries (the first of which is already at the planning stage), and establishing a legal defense fund to assist those, such as Professor Peter Ridd of the Great Barrier Reef, who have been libeled, punished or dismissed for daring to do what scientists ought to do – to take no one’s word for it and to go on asking questions until the truth emerges.

The idea of online universities on the model of the Open University and Liberty University is also being considered by some members of the Group, and the possibility of establishing an internet based home-schooling network for pupils aged 3 to 18 is also under consideration.

All teachers, lecturers, professors and students in the new network of schools and universities will sign a binding contract with the holding corporation. That contract will govern their conduct, and will in particular forbid them, on pain of expulsion, to interfere in any way with freedom of academic inquiry, research, thought, speech or action.

The Group will also establish friendly relations with other independent-minded entities worldwide that are dedicated to the advancement of true science free of totalitarian taint.

Above all, as the declaration says, the Group will argue that “climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

Let pure reason, not totalitarian prejudice, hold sway once more in the groves of academe, the corridors of power and the public square!

Advertisements

203 thoughts on “Global Climate Intelligence Group founded

    • Excellent initiative. Great to finally see some push back from scientists who still believe in objective science instead of political activist pseudo-science.

      This should have happened in 2009 after Climategate, but better late than never.

      Go for it!

      • The Propaganda Ministry we consider the leftist world press will never allow this to stand. Between suppression and disinformation they will oppose any group seeking to bring science back into this discussion.

        Their science is settled and they own the popular vote for climate change as a political science.

        • Only because the masses have been indoctrinated & brainwashed far too long. At least this is a start to educate people about the truth…………
          Thank you for the truthful information.

    • I think the communication skills are more important than the science. The use of numbers must be minimized.

      After all, real climate science has a lot of unknowns:
      — The exact causes of climate change are unknown.
      — The climate in 100 years is unknown, not even whether it will be colder or warmer.

      With climate junk science the cause of warming is “known” and the future climate can be “predicted” !

      People like certainty, even if 100% wrong !

      With no one actually KNOWING the future climate, one focus should be on the past 50 years of wrong predictions about the future climate.

      Make fun of the 100% wrong predictions — ridicule them — laugh at them.

      Even more important is to teach the most important concept:
      — EVERYONE living on this planet has been living in a period of intermittent global warming (since the late 1600s)

      — And humans have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere for over 100 years,
      especially after 1950.

      — So people have a choice:

      REAL SCIENCE:
      — Learn about what ACTUALLY HAPPENED to the climate since 1950 (harmless intermittent warming)

      JUNK SCIENCE
      (aka CLIMATE ASTROLOGY)
      — Blindly believe in the always wrong, wild guess predictions of a coming climate crisis, that we’ve been hearing about since the 1970s. How many decades of predicting a climate crisis are required before people stop believing the predictions ?

      • Hello Richard, The real drivers of earth’s climate are known and are evidently never broadcasted as there are political, idealogical and financial objectives that have to be followed and executed.
        The 3 known drivers are the sun(surprise surprise), global cloud cover and atmospheric pressure. Not the useful idiot scapegoat 0.05% Co2 of which ‘humans’ produce a tiny fraction compared to Mother Nature.
        But schh, it’s a secret never to be mentioned publicly!

      • Klimatförändringen har jag märkt av sedan 40-50 talet. Då hade vi isläggning längs sydkusten.
        WW2 tycks inte haft någon inverkan på klimatet. Klimatet styrs av andra faktorer. jorden pendlar
        med olika grader vart 40 tusende år. En polvändning är på gång med ca,7mil per år (den magnetiska polen) sådana omständigheter kan kanske spela in. Om man tog bort all co halt skulle hela jorden
        bli en snöboll. Jag föredrar en grönare värld.

    • Good idea, also demand Open ‘science’. IT experts, programmers, those who understand code, models, schemas like myself, should be able to audit the climate-cult’s models. This is real science. If all of their idiotic predictions are based on fraudulent data sources (infilling temp history), fraudulent algorithms (forcing the answers), and fraudulent schemas, it will take no more than a week to reveal it. So open them up to scrutiny from experts is what I would demand. When the cult say no, that is your answer that all of this is a data-programming fraud.

    • This sounds like another organization, I have knowledge of. Military Intelligence, after a close revirw, no intelligence was located:-)

  1. Great news Christopher. I wish the new science based organisation well. Let us hope sufficient men and women of scientific repute sign up and have the wisdom and will to broadcast the truth about climate.

    • I’m very confident many will! In the Netherlands for example more and more people become aware of the far-reaching consequences that climate policy will bring about. This will increase their responsiveness to listen to the Group’s experts and common sense message. See also CLINTEL Climate Intelligence Foundation. Undoubtedly CLINTEL will gain more experts to their organisation.

        • badEnglish, I’ve just read the slanderous article… Slanderous indeed! The moment people start attacking the messenger by claiming all its intentions are evil you know they are avoiding any debate on the real matter. Often it’s a waste of time to argue with religious people. I think the biggest challenge in the first place in not to try to inform or convince the public about the fact that the only place where CAGW exists is in the models, because it has been put in, but rather have them realize the possibility that even big institutions, large groups of scientists or a great deal of politicians COULD be wrong about stuff! As long as people rely blindly on these majorities they are deaf for any sceptical views, unfortunately.

    • At some point as Global Warming became Global Climate Change, it also became a pop culture movement and facts became secondary or even irrelevant. Banning plastic bags, straws and the like are celebrated as great accomplishments, but have very little overall effect. There’s no focus on real improvements like converting coal power plants to natural gas. I hope over the next year or so the exposure of the political motives behind the global climate change movement is discussed openly.

  2. Great news – I hope Dr David Bellamy might be persuaded to come onboard, as he was roundly vilified and excluded from the mainstream media, for his views that man-made global warming was ‘poppycock’….

  3. Who should we believe?
    A 16 year old girl Swedish school girl, a greenhorn and wet behind her ears?
    or
    A 79 year old retired Dutch engineer with a long track record of successful work?

    I would give my full support to the engineer – especially since an engineer is concerned with what really works and not simply theories and models that are the bread and butter of most academic scientists.

    • What was it Burt Rutan (aerospace engineer) said, “ If I told you that my aeroplane would very likely stay aloft, would you fly in it?”

    • I’ll see your 16 and raise you a nickel:

      In Waterloo we were treated by the CBC to a five year old boy advising the Prime Minister that the polar bears are dying and he must do something about the climate to stop it.

      I challenge the BBC to see my nickel and raise it thruppence.

  4. This is only the start. It is necessary that a substantial bloc of the news media be got on side. A Public Relations guru is needed.

    • True. It may not be the start of the end, but it is the end of the beginning.

      More than welcome in my eyes, and long overdue. Kudos and many thanks to Christopher and all those making this Happen.

    • Indeed so, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. The international MSM has become nothing less than the propaganda arm of the Globalist project, ever ready and willing to promote whatever authority tells them to. The best we can expect is a mention in derogatory terms of how they are a fringe opinion beholden to the fossil fuel industry.

      • Yes, the climatariat do like to have concrete individuals as targets to attack and vilify.

        Every one of these signatories can now expect to have their entire life (social, academic, employment, etc) put under a microscope. The smallest of perceived errors or misdemeanors will then be used to smear all of them by association. Truth or falsity will be of no real interest to their tormentors. I hope they are ready, and realize what they have let themselves in for. It would be wise for the more experienced among them to write a document advising them all how to deal with the possibly life-changing harassment to be expected.

    • More than that is needed. I am a resident of Colombia, and the principle paper here is El Tiempo. Every so often they run articles pro-AGW in Spanish, of course. But the articles are entirely translations from English. I imagine much the same is happening in other Latin American countries. The latest article, and I collect them all, is from an outfit called Project Syndicate and is a translation from some discourse by Rachel Kyte, who is apparently some mucky muck with the UN. To counter this propaganda will take effort and money. On the other hand, here in Colombia, at least, this propaganda is having little effect. Most people are too busy trying to get on with life. I have complained to El Tiempo about the one-sidedness of their articles. No counter arguments are even presented. No answer, of course. Good luck to all of us.

  5. What a welcome move. Perhaps our left-leaning NZ MSM will find it difficult to ignore this move – they ignore almost every other attempt to explain the skeptical point of view. Perhaps it will act as a counter-balance to that false but frequently quoted 97%.

  6. Good luck to them but they must be wrong because The Duke of Sussex says that global warming is real and a danger.

    • He and his wife have displayed their deep insight on their trip to South Africa. His wife paid tribute to a murdered 19 year old but seems unaware of the over 500 000 murder victims since the end of apartheid. Yes, we can rely on their climate and political views (sarc)!

  7. Been a long time coming but I am extremely grateful to this collection of true experts in the field to stand up and repudiate the nonsense that is churned out on a daily basis. Maybe Greta will return home and get a life, although that will be difficult with her parents.

    • Great idea and good luck to it. However, it will be the usual problem of getting the details of it out to the public. With our grand, respected and totally unbiased (Sarc) such as the BBC and the Grauniad refusing to publish anything that isn’t on the hymn sheet it will be difficult to get it’s views known.

      • i apologise for resubmitting some details from a previous posting, but would really recommend listening to a BBC item called The Corrections.
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0008r5b
        Someone has slipped this past the BBC censors and shows how fake news about fracking has been developed and pushed by the MSM.
        Do we hope for some more insightful programmes from the BBC? I won’t hold my breath.

        • STEPHEN,
          They did the same with nuclear power to great effect.
          This is a great article describing how nuclear power went from being the savior of mankind to evil incarnate.
          If Nuclear Power Is So Safe, Why Are We So Afraid Of It?
          (link: http://bit.ly/31dE60j)
          bit.ly/31dE60j
          Democrats Ignore Inconvenient Math on Nuclear Power

          http://bit.ly/2yOp05i

    • I am a geophysicist, and have been involved in the oil industry for over 30 years. I am familiar with Prof Berkhout, through his geophysical books, numerous papers at conferences for oil exploration and through the work of his many excellent students over the years. You might therefore expect me to applaud this initiative. On the contrary I am quite bothered by it. These “ambassadors” do not appear to me to be a group of “true experts” in the field of climatology or atmospheric science, with the exception of . Most of the group are either scientists in the energy industry, like myself, or non scientists. I can assure you that most energy industry scientists are not also expert in the field of climatology. If the 97% of climate scientists who concur that anthropogenic climate change is real are in fact mistaken, surely Prof. Berkhout could at least have found a group of dissenting climatologists as his group of ambassadors?

      • A change in temperature implies heat transfer. If you do not understand the engineering subject of heat transfer and have had no actual experience with this technology I suggest that you remain silent. I do not know of any so-called climate scientist except maybe Prof Judith Curry who is qualified, understands, and has experience with heat transfer. If Prof Berkhout has knowledge and experience he has a right to speak out. The late Dr Noor Van Andel ( a Chemical Engineer) understood heat transfer and did speak out to the KNMI ( Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute) showing them that AGW was nonsense. No one has proved he was wrong.

      • Well said, but I would go much further. This nothing other than an industry funded, doubt-mongering organ. Far from injecting science they will be doing everything in their power to muddy the water, repeat long debunked myths and disseminate biased opinion pieces to trick the gullible and to preserve their business-as-usual status quo as long as possible.

        In other words big carbon money continues to undermines democracy and science.

        Berkhout founded the Netherlands-based climate change denial organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL). Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made to law. According to The Independent these campaign feature “hundreds of climate change deniers including academics, politicians and lobbyists”. Signatories come from several denial organizations such as Koch-founded Cato Institute and Heartland Institute, which are also part of the Atlas Network, Institute of Economic Affairs, Adam Smith Institute and TaxPayers’ Alliance as well as members from oil- and gas companies. The letter, which was confirmed by Berkhout, claims that current changes in the climate are “expected from the cyclic behaviour of the climate system” and that there is “no proof” that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global warming.[8] According to Desmog the “international organising group” behind the campaign “includes some well-known figures from the climate misinformation world” such as Richard Lindzen, Vic Forbes, Fritz Vahrenholt, Jeffrey Foss, Jim O’Brien and Terence Dunleavy.[9]
        https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-science-deniers-boris-johnson-environment-leak-a9094631.html
        https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/09/06/climate-science-deniers-planning-coordinated-european-misinformation-campaign-leaked-documents-reveal

        • Loyodo,
          Once you quote desmogblog, you lose all credibility.
          http://bit.ly/2kJMNzE
          The Truth about DeSmogBlog

          DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they attack in respected news sources.

      • The 97% figure is a Big Lie, worthy of Dr. Goebbels. The fake tag “climate scientists” is yet another blatant fib.

        Many so-called climate scientists are not even scientists, let alone real climatologists. Typical of their ilk is Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician who took over GISS from “Venus Express” Hansen. “Climate scientists” are GIGO computer gamers, not scientists.

        The 2009 Doran-Zimmermann survey of over 3000 respondents (out of more than 10,000 sent the poll) government and academic scientists in relevant disciplines is the source for the bogus 97% lie. They didn’t like the overall result, so cherry-picked 79 “actively publishing climate scientists”, of whom 77 answered yes to question one, ie has Earth warmed since the mid-19th century. Of these, 75 further agreed that human activity was predominantly responsible for warming since the mid-20th century. So even among this tiny, unrepresentative group, without any private sector scientists, agreement was less than 97%.

        “Predominantly” wasn’t defined, of course. And there was no third question, ie has this warming and increased CO2 been good or bad for plants, children and other living things?

        As the late, great admirable Dr. Crichton said, “If it’s consensus, it’s not science. If it’s science, it’s not consensus.”

        • As I recall, the question was not even “Predominantly Caused by Man” but “A portion caused by man’s activity” – to include BOTH CO2 increases AND albedo changes (deforestation/burning rain forests being the usual example)

          • https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009eo030002

            The actual wording was “significant”:

            “1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or
            remained relatively constant?
            2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

            “Significant” could include less than 50%, which would be the threshold for my incorrect “predominant”.

        • No surprise that 75 of 79 “actively publishing climate scientists” agreed that their livelihood was justified. Still, I wonder how many more would have been pared away by a third question as to whether whatever warming has occurred and planetary greening from more plant food in the air has been good, as believed by Arrhenius and Callendar, or bad, as by Greta and Gore.

          This finding was of course not reported by the media:

          “The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were
          economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).” Had millions of private sector scientists been included, the result might have been closer to the reverse, ie 3% for CACA and 97% against the falsified hypothesis.

      • Richard,
        Climate is an extremely complex field requiring expertise in multiple disciplines. There are too many disciplines for any one field to encompass them all. Climatology is merely a degree in which an individual learns a little bit about everything but is a master of none. It has no importance to anyone but those, like you, who think it does.
        CLIMATE SCIENCE FIELDS OF STUDY
        https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/
        Climate science is a field with many different points of entry. Here is a list of the topics in which our climate scientists have taken their PhD’s:
        * Applied Mathematics (1)
        * Chemistry (1)
        * Geology (1)
        * Atmospheric Science (1)
        * Geophysics (x3)
        * Hydrology (1)
        * Marine Geology (1)
        * Meteorology (1)
        * Planetary Atmospheres (1)
        * Physics (x2)
        * Mathematical/Theoretical Physics (x2)
        Here is the breakdown of doctoral fields of study for the 15 climate scientists on our list:
        * one in applied mathematics;
        * one in chemistry;
        * nine in geology and related fields; and
        * four in physics, including mathematical/theoretical physics.
        Some additional subjects that also might lead into climate science might include the following:
        * Geology-related Fields
        * Climatology
        * Earth and Environmental Sciences
        * Marine Biology
        * Oceanography
        * Planetary Science
        * Radiometric Dating
        * Stratigraphy
        * Volcanology
        * Physics-related Fields
        * Astrophysics
        * Fluid Dynamics
        * Statistical Mechanics
        * Thermodynamics
        If you try, you can probably come up with still more fields of study that would be relevant to the highly synthetic field of climate science.
        ___
        Also, the 97% claim has been thoroughly debunked numerous times and here is a link.
        97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”
        (link: http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html?m=1)
        populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-art…

      • Richard,
        To the other link, I add this one which is highly detailed as to why the 97% claim is 97% Fake.

        97% Consensus “Studies” Destroyed

        Written evidence submitted by Robin Guenier (IPC0024)
        http://bit.ly/2MKoahR

      • Richard,
        It appears that most climate scientists don’t understand the difference between accuracy and precision, and likewise don’t know how to properly propagate uncertainty though their calculations; they think they can reduce it via averaging. Real engineers like yourself know better, so I definitely think there is a role for experts outside the relatively closed groups of “climate scientists”.

  8. This petition is a highly worthwhile endeavour – sincere thanks to those who organized it.

    For those who still have doubts about the true agenda of the Green extremists, consider the following:

    The global warming/climate change scare has always been about socialism and totalitarian control of citizens and society – it’s never been about the science. That’s why the global warming extremists refuse to debate their wild exaggerations of climate sensitivity to CO2, and repeatedly bleat their Big Lie, that “the science is settled”.

    These are classic Nazi propaganda tactics, as later codified by Alinsky.
    https://www.azquotes.com/

    “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”
    – Joseph Goebbels

    The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.
    – Saul Alinsky

    Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace provided an early warning of this covert socialist campaign in “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement – The Rise of Eco-Extremism”, in 1994:

    “Surprisingly enough, the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”
    http://ecosense.me/2012/12/30/key-environmental-issues-4/

    Naomi Klein, in her new flamethrower, “On Fire, The Burning Case for a Green New Deal”, also makes it clear that the climate is a “powerful motivator” to overthrow capitalism.

    “The idea is a simple one: In the process of transforming the infrastructure of our societies at the speed and scale that scientists have called for, humanity has a once-in-a- century chance to fix an economic model that is failing the majority of people on multiple fronts. … Challenging these underlying forces is an opportunity to solve several interlocking crises at once.”
    https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Burning-Case-Green-Deal/dp/1982129913

    The clear intent is to use the global warming smokescreen to restrict economic and political freedoms by transforming Western countries into tightly controlled socialist states.

    ”The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
    – H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956
    https://www.azquotes.com/author/9962-H_L_Mencken/tag/humanity

    • My greatest problem has been that every single ‘solution’ to the hypothesised CAGW ‘problem’ involves a very, very socialist solution, if not an outright fascist one. That’s the ‘tell’ in my opinion.

    • Alan, with all due respect, the actual quote from Joseph Goebbels is significantly different than the version you posted, and is far more chilling in its insight as to what is now happening with the “State” and their accomplices, the MSM:
      “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

      And it specifically applies to the State of states, the United Nations.

    • The current climate hysteria is a well-funded global campaign, conducted by the wolves to stampede the sheep. Why now? Because the global warming scam will soon come tumbling down, where even the most stupid warmist acolytes will realize they have been duped. How will this happen?

      The failed catastrophic very-scary catastrophic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, which ASSUMES that increasing atmospheric CO2, driven by fossil fuel combustion, will be clearly disproved because fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase, CO2 albeit at a slower rate, while global temperatures cool significantly.

      This scenario has already happened from ~1940 to 1977, a period when fossil fuel combustion rapidly accelerated and atmospheric temperature cooled – that observation was sufficient to disprove the global warming fraud many decades ago.

      Regarding Willie Soon’s recent video at
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/15/global-warming-fact-or-fiction-featuring-physicists-willie-soon-and-elliott-bloom/

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/15/global-warming-fact-or-fiction-featuring-physicists-willie-soon-and-elliott-bloom/#comment-2797328

      Willie Soon’s best points start at 54:51, where he shows the Sun-Climate relationship and provides his conclusions.

      There is a strong correlation between the Daily High Temperatures and the Solar Total Irradiance (54:51 of the video):

      … in the USA (55:02),

      Canada (55:16),

      and Mexico (55:20).

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/offset:-1360/scale:1

      Solar Total Irradiance is now close to 1360 W/m2, similar to near-lows circa 1915, 1960 and 1970. Atmospheric temperatures should be cooling in the near future – maybe they already are.

      BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

      We do know that the Sun is at the end Solar Cycle 24 (SC24), the weakest since the Dalton Minimum (circa 1800), and SC25 is also expected to be weak. We also know that both the Dalton Minimum and the Maunder Minimum (circa 1700) were very cold periods that caused considerable human suffering.

      I wrote in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald that stated:

      “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

      That prediction was based of the end of the Gleissberg Cycle of ~80-90 years, dated from 1940, the beginning of the previous global cooling period from ~1940 to 1977.

      “Kyoto Hot Air Can’t Replace Fossil Fuels”
      Calgary Herald, September 1, 2002, by Allan M.R. MacRae
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/#comment-63579

      In 2003 Theodor Landscheidt’s published his famous prediction of global cooling, in which he wrote:

      “… it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth.”

      Within the timing accuracy of such predictions, we are essentially saying the same thing, although Landscheidt is predicting more severe cooling.

      “New Little ICE Age Instead of Global Warming?”
      Theodor Landscheidt First Published May 1, 2003
      Energy & Environment
      https://doi.org/10.1260/095830503765184646

      “Abstract
      Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8°C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the secular Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove ‘skillful’ as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct, as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.”

      DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

      … there is no question that global warming alarmism is not only false, it is fraudulent, as evidenced by the Climategate emails, the Mann hockey stick (MBH98 and subsequent papers) and rational scientific analysis.

      The global warming alarmists use Goebbels tactics, later adapted by Saul Alinsky in “Rules for Radicals (1971), to stampede the gullible public.
      http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

      Rules for Radicals
      1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
      2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
      3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
      4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
      5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
      6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
      7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
      8. “Keep the pressure on.”
      9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
      10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
      11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
      12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
      13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

      Rule 7 states: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
      That rule explains the frequent changes in the name of the false crisis – from global warming to climate change to sustainability to climate crisis to extinction – I may have missed a few others. Keep it new and exciting for the sheep – mustn’t let them get bored.

      Rule 13 states: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
      That explains the vicious hostility that warmists display towards anyone who dares disagree with their falsehoods, and the blatant Green Big Lie “The science is settled”.

      Alinsky’s rules closely describe the propaganda strategy of the global warming scam, and it has been executed with precision, with huge covert funding from extreme leftist sources.

      The above scenario, of significant global cooling even as fossil fuel combustion continues, has already happened, from ~1940 to 1977, a period when fossil fuel combustion rapidly accelerated and atmospheric temperature cooled – that observation was sufficient to disprove the global warming fraud many decades ago.

      I wonder what the beginning of a global cooling period will look like:

      Maybe a cold weather delay of one month in the planting of the huge Midwest North American grain crop? Oh – that happened for the past two years!

      Maybe cold-and-wet Spring weather such that ~30% of the huge USA corn crop did not even get planted, because the ground was too wet for farm equipment? Oh – that happened this year!

      Regards, Allan

      • typo:

        The failed catastrophic very-scary catastrophic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, which ASSUMES IT IS CAUSED BY increasing atmospheric CO2, driven by fossil fuel combustion, will be clearly disproved because fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase, CO2 albeit at a slower rate, while global temperatures cool significantly.

  9. wow, thats cheering news!
    may the numbers grow mightily
    we really NEED something like this with people they canNOT dissmiss as unqualified to have an opinion etc

  10. What about funding? Buying broadsheet pages or TV time is expensive- but because the MSM gasps for money, no chance they’ll refuse. Do we need a crowdfunding exercise?

    • Crowdfunding is an excellent Idea! A way to advertise the project widely is needed to get attention from the millions of non scientists who suspect something is amiss.

  11. Mr Monkton
    you claim the BBC is unspeakable. but apart from Fox “news” (not available in uk) whom else should I listen to for accurate climate reporting.
    I have tried Euronews, France 24, Al Jazeera, RT, CNN, BBC, ITV, channel 5, channel 4, Sky, CGTN, NHK, Arirang (3 satellites searched).
    They all support the fact that AGW is happening and it needs correcting.

    How does the UN and IPCC control the news from all these countries?
    How does the UN and IPCC control the output from 10s of thousands of scientists?

    How can your scientists predict the future so much more accurately than thousands of others?

    • Speaking as an Englishman, I agree the BBC is a disgrace, completely biased on most topics.
      The UN and IPCC does not control the news, they do not need to, they all piss in the same alarmist pot, it sells newspapers.
      The UN and IPCC have invested billions of dollars paying their scientist to come up with information that suits their agenda, stop paying these people and see what their real opinion is. A lot of people are making a very nice living on the back of climate alarmist propaganda, so there is a conflict of interest/

      • fatherup September 28, 2019 at 4:39 am
        “The UN and IPCC does not control the news, they do not need to, they all piss in the same alarmist pot, it sells newspapers.”
        ——————————-
        what newspapers do the IPCC sell?
        or are you saying he ipcc receive backhanders from news media?

        wiki
        “The IPCC was tasked with reviewing peer-reviewed scientific literature and other relevant publications to provide information on the state of knowledge about climate change.”
        i.e. the research is not theirs.

        “The IPCC receives funding through the IPCC Trust Fund, established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Costs of the Secretary and of housing the secretariat are provided by the WMO, while UNEP meets the cost of the Depute Secretary. Annual cash contributions to the Trust Fund are made by the WMO, by UNEP, and by IPCC Members. Payments and their size are voluntary. The Panel is responsible for considering and adopting by consensus the annual budget. The organization is required to comply with the Financial Regulations and Rules of the WMO.”

        is this a backhander?

        wiki
        Burden on participating scientists[edit]
        Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions.

        • Who said anything about the IPCC selling newspapers, do you consider any reasonable comment as a conspiracy theory.

        • ghalfrunt,

          You are very mistaken about the IPCC which publishes so-called scientific reports that the MSM promotes because those ‘reports’ provide scary stories. The scares are cheap sources for newspaper articles and TV documentaries.

          The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions.
          The facts are as follows.

          It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.

          Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,
          “ We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
          This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.

          This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal
          ( http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_July11_96.pdf )
          so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.

          Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.
          4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel

          Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .”
          This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.

          The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.

          The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.

          This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.
          These are stated at
          http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

          Near its beginning that document says
          ROLE
          The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. “
          This says the IPCC exists to provide
          (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
          and
          (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

          Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.

          The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
          1
          amendment of each IPCC ‘scientific’ Report to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose
          2
          by means of the politicians and representatives of politicians amending then approving the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (SPM)
          3
          followed by the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the approved SPM.

          In other words, all IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.

          Richard

          • The science paid for by coal companies finds there is no warming – other climate science disagrees. The science paid for by Exxon and suppressed, finds it’s warming. The science paid for by the Koch brothers affirms all the findings of climate research done by the worldwide institutions (Gôôgle “Dr. Mulder & BEST”). There are a few venal contrarian scientists, mainly retired with little to know climate science research or publication, and clearly most of them are fossil-fuel funded propagandists.

            A consensus in science is very rare and an exception rather than the rule as everything changes over time as more information and evidence comes to hand. To obtain a consensus in science takes hard work and years of research and demonstration of repeatable results. A consensus in science is earned. Earned from the body of research pointing to a set of conclusions. AGW is a rare, solid scientific theory, 123 years old with consensus.Every current researcher worldwide who publishes in the recognized peer-review journals subscribes to the theory i.e. 100%.Scientific bodies, professional organizations, institutes, societies, etc worldwide that reject the IPCC findings = ZERO!Defendant Chevron 3/21/2018 Federal Court SFC:”The best science was presented by plaintive … from Chevron’s perspective, there’s no debate about climate science. First, because Chevron accepts what this scientific body and includes scientists and others, but what the IPCC has reached consensus on in terms of science on climate change.” All other defendants concurred.” People of State of California v. BP p.l.c. http://climatecasechart.com/case/people-state-california-v-bp-plc-oakland/ Defendants: Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhilips +10 DOES

          • Rob,

            You say,
            “A consensus in science is very rare and an exception rather than the rule as everything changes over time as more information and evidence comes to hand. ”

            Sorry, but you could not be more wrong because there is no such thing a “consensus in science”. Consensus is a political construct and it is the antithesis of science; nullius in verba.

            You also wrongly assert, “AGW is a rare, solid scientific theory”.
            No, AGW is an hypothesis which has no supporting evidence; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada.

            I cited, linked and quoted the IPCC’s own documents which state the IPCC’s ‘Role’ and procedures. You have responded by making untrue assertions about “the IPCC findings”.

            There are no “IPCC findings” because the IPCC does no research, has made no findings and does not claim to have made any “findings”. The IPCC is an overtly political (n.b. NOT scientific) body that does as it is officially tasked to do; i.e. the IPCC publishes “Summaries For Policymakers” of documents containing selected ” “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” together with “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

            I add that your rant implies you think there is need for actions of the kinds advocated by e.g. Greta Thunberg. Fortunately, there is no evidence for any need for any such political actions. I refer you to the most recent petition from scientists and professionals that provides the facts of these matters in this case for presentation to European policymakers
            https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf
            Please read it because at present you display immense ignorance of these matters.

            Richard

          • Richard, rob won’t read your provided link let alone be educated by it, he/she/it is a troll that wallows in his/her/its ignorance (as can been seen in several threads over the past couple of weeks). rob the troll was kicked out by the MODS once already (“put into the trash bin” as SUNMOD put it in the “Live stream climate debate from NYC” thread) for his/her/its bad behavior.

            (He is now BANNED) SUNMOD

      • “what newspapers do the IPCC sell?”

        The phrase starts with “The UN and IPCC” , so the pronoun would have to be “they”, not “it”.

        What was meant, was that : climate alarmism [it] sells newpapers. They all piss in the same pot.

    • ghalfrunt
      Seems like your trying a variation in the consensus argument to me. Try to think for yourself rather that believe verbatim what others are trying to get you to believe.

      • When you limit yourself to only the news organizations that agree with you, it’s hard not to get a consensus.

    • When Bill Clinton was appointed as President there were 150 + news outlets. Today, we have six corporations that control ALL information. Every notice when changing fake news channels they all use the very same words? Like they are reading the same script? Because they are. Deep State is world wide control. MAGA

      • Agreed Big Al. Years ago (VHS & Beta) patriots would hobble news clips together and play them one after the other. They sold them at monthly patriot meetings for the cost of the tape. It WAS the same script. Disturbing.

  12. Good to hear.

    I am very, very skeptical about the statement being used “CO2 is not a pollutant”. One could quite logically and correctly point out that arsenic is not a pollutant in many cases and serves a function on the planet. The proper statement is:
    “CO2, as defined by the global warming theory” is not a pollutant”.
    In reality, a room full of CO2 can and has killed people in high concentrations. Like everything, concentration makes the pollutant, as does context. Scientifically, you can argue that CO2 from combustion is not pollution because it does not cause irreparable harm at the levels found in the atmosphere. However, I don’t think a blanket statement like “CO2 is not a pollutant” can be defended. That’s more politics than science.

    • CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a pure gas like oxygen. CO2 and oxygen are the foundations of life on earth.

    • Well oxygen is the oxidizer and thus when combined with any of a plethora of other elements would be a pollutant based on your reasoning. It has killed far more people by it’s effects on structural materials that then failed than CO2 ever has.

    • Your viewpoint is not entirely wrong, but as a generalization I consider flawed.
      You could turn it upside down and argue that H2O is a pollutant – you can drown in it and if H2O is not mixed with minerals, you should not drink too much of it over a short period of time.

    • Hi Sheri
      I disagree here with you. We drink the CO2 everyday (in our sodas)? So why would you want to indicate it as poisonous? If you think like that, then you could and should also call sugar, salt, garlic, etc poisonous. Is that what you want? I think it will only add to the confusion?
      In the Chemie Lexicon issue 1973 a MAK value of 9000 mg/m3 is reported but it is also stated that CO2 cannot be regarded as pollutant. To prove this they did tests on rabbits and they increased the content of the CO2 in the air up to 65% CO2 leaving at least enough oxygen in the mixture (21%). The rabbits would not die. [note that CO2 in the air is only a trace gas, ca. 0.04%]

      Obviously, if you think of taking your own live by sitting in a closed car and pumping exhaust gasses (mainly CO2) in the car, you will die. But it will in fact not be due to CO2 poisening. It will be due to asphyxiation. A lack of oxygen…..

      The MAK value of 9000 is reported to warn people of the danger of asphyxiation, i.e. a lack of oxygen, because CO2 is heavier than air.

      • Henryp

        I think you’ll find that car exhaust is mainly Carbon Monoxide and not Carbon Dioxide.

        After carbon monoxide is breathed in, it enters your bloodstream and mixes with haemoglobin (the part of red blood cells that carry oxygen around your body) to form carboxyhaemoglobin.

        When this happens, the blood is no longer able to carry oxygen, and this lack of oxygen causes the body’s cells and tissue to fail and die.

        • If your car is properly tuned, there is no carbon monoxide in the exhaust. In modern cars, even if your car isn’t properly tuned, the amount of carbon monoxide is barely measurable.

        • @harrowsceptic

          Not mainly CO. No. It is mainly CO2. I will admit that there is an amount of CO in the total mixture being fed into the car …. How much of it would depend on how ‘out of tune’ the settings of the engine of your car are?
          More CO in the exhaust mixture is an indication of incomplete burning of your fuel.

        • @harrowsceptic

          Not mainly CO in the exhaust. No. It is mainly CO2. I will admit that there is an amount of CO in the total mixture being fed into the car …. How much of it would depend on how ‘out of tune’ the settings of the engine of your car are?
          More CO in the exhaust mixture is an indication of incomplete burning of your fuel.

        • Any modern, well-tuned ICE using any fossil fuel (i.e., not fueled by H2), has an exhaust stream that predominately consists of H2O and CO2 and N2, the first two of these chemical compounds being essential for nearly all life on Earth.

          CO, unburned hydrocarbons, nitrous oxides, and sulfur dioxide are all properly characterized as trace pollutants in an ICE exhaust stream. The first three of these are further minimized by the use of a well functioning catalytic converter operating at design temperature.

    • Sheri,

      An atmosphere of 100% Oxygen (or perhaps even 50%) vs. 20% today, would kill nearly all life forms on earth.

      An atmosphere of 95% Nitrogen (vs 80% today) would kill or drive extinct over time most mammals.

      An increase of CO2 from 0.04% to twice or triple that very small fraction of our atmosphere has direct and primary effect of feeding plants better and greening the earth.

      It’s all about having the right balance. There is no specific right amount of CO2, but yes, for nearly everything good and useful there is a limit.

    • CO2, is quite literally the first link in every food chain. It is NOT a pollutant by any description. Yes, you could suffocate in a room full of it, but you can also drown in 2 inches of water. Does that make water a pollutant?

        • Nonsense.
          Military testing shows healthy adults are not in any danger breathing 3 percent CO2.
          Basal metabolism in mammals produces 5 percent CO2 in lung alveoli.
          Anything over 5 percent should be avoided, but is not immediately dangerous.
          Breathing 7 percent CO2 for over 30 minutes is not good, you should immediately get out of that area, but is not fatal.
          Breathing 10 percent CO2 will cause loss of consciousness within minutes.

          • 3% is 30,000ppm/v and so on. I think you will find 30,000ppm/v and above is terminal simply due to oxygen depletion.

  13. Name it something else! Give is some more esoteric name because based on actions and events since the last presidential election the word “intelligence” used today in it’s form having to do with the collection of information for any purpose other than military operations or those involved in such activities is now a trigger word in the United States having a viscerally negative connotation to a huge number of American citizens.

  14. But there is an ocean problem. Mankind is poisoning the oceans with pollutants. These cause dead zones, acidification, and artificial ocean surface warming, not to mention carcinogens. Polluted water absorbs more sunlight than clean water. This is the cause of artificial ocean heating, not CO2. All nations do gross water pollution: China, India, even the USA. 3/4 of the planet surface is ocean. On average clean ocean water normally reflects more sunlight than land. Water pollution causes ocean water to absorb more sunlight.

    • They aren’t saying there aren’t problems in the world, just that a changing climate is not one of the highest urgency. A changing climate, and the climate is always changing, is always something of concern. We waste entirely too much time and energy on this non-urgent problem, however. Time and energy that could better be used to address, among other things, real pollutant causes.

    • While there are pollutants, to claim that we are poisoning the oceans is such a gross overstatement as to cause one to wonder about your ability to think clearly and rationally.
      The dead zones are real, but highly localized, both in space and time.
      acidification – isn’t happening
      ocean warming – how is an alleged increase of 0.01C supposed to harm anything.

      Ocean water already absorbs all the light that enters it.

  15. Hi Sheri
    I disagree here with you. We drink the CO2 everyday (in our sodas)? So why would you want to indicate it as poisonous? If you think like that, then you could and should also call sugar, salt, garlic, etc poisonous. Is that what you want? I think it will only add to the confusion?
    In the Chemie Lexicon issue 1973 a MAK value of 9000 mg/m3 is reported but it is also stated that CO2 cannot be regarded as pollutant. To prove this they did tests on rabbits and they increased the content of the CO2 in the air up to 65% CO2 leaving at least enough oxygen in the mixture (21%). The rabbits would not die. [note that CO2 in the air is only a trace gas, ca. 0.04%]

    Obviously, if you think of taking your own live by sitting in a closed car and pumping exhaust gasses (mainly CO2) in the car, you will die. But it will in fact not be due to CO2 poisening. It will be due to asphyxiation. A lack of oxygen…..

    The MAK value of 9000 is reported to warn people of the danger of asphyxiation, i.e. a lack of oxygen, because CO2 is heavier than air.

  16. “…and the possibility of establishing an internet based home-schooling network for pupils aged 3 to 18 is also under consideration.”

    Whilst I can understand the concern and reasoning behind this, I really think that three year olds should be left out of this. Yes, there is a lot of messaging in entertainment media aimed at the young but I don’t think homeschooling is the best approach for such young children.

    In my opinion a much stronger emphasis needs to be placed on removing “climate change” from so many parts of mainstream curricula where it is neither necessary nor appropriate. For those subjects where it is relevant, the objective should be to ensure a much more complete and balanced treatment.

    • Slow To Follow, I agree with You. However, in the real world there are TV Bedtime Stories aimed at the small ones. Therefore, in this sick stream of propaganda, it may be wise to de-frighten the the young ones and babies too.

  17. Great news. For too long the “97% of scientists…..” has been quoted as the de facto argument of the AGW supporters. Getting the real science out there will be fantastic. Well done.

  18. A bunch of retired guys.

    and then these

    Rob Lemeire, publicist
    Eric Blondeel, retired Civil Engineer.
    Drieu Godefridi, PhD in Law,
    Jan Jacobs, Science Journalist
    Patrick de Casanove, Doctor of Medicine
    Philippe Catier, Medical Doctor
    Patrick Mellett, architect and CEO.
    Tony J. Carey, BA (Natural Sciences),
    Owen O’Brien, Business Founder and Entrepreneur
    Eduard Harinck, Former Logistics Expert,
    Elsa Widding, Consultant,

    Jozef Verhulst, Author
    Appo van der Wiel, Senior Development Engineer
    Jean-Pierre Bardinet, Ingénieur ENSEM, publicist
    Dr. Thiago Maia, Nuclear Physicist with PhD in Astrophysics, wrote critical climate
    letter to Brazilian Government
    Joe Fone, CAD Engineer, Enatel Ltd
    David Wojick, Cognitive Scientist, USA
    Bob Zybach, Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project I
    Gregory R. Wrightstone, Expert Reviewer IPCCC 6th Assessment Report (AR6), USA

    I LOVE the guys who listed IPCC reviwer, especially the guy who listed IPCCC reviewer

    Listing IPCC reviwer as a credential is down right funny

    there were many more

    The list was hilarious. wanna bes and has beens

    • Steven

      You think a bunch of retired folks are funny…
      Pity. You are the one who is mistaken. It is the retired folks who have the experience with science. The rest all believe in junk science. Hence, we have 97% of them actually believing that CO2 is a posion and that it can cause warming of the earth….

    • How about this one:

      Steven Mosher: English major (Who can’t figure out how to fix his smart phone typos)

      Now THAT one is hilarious.

    • In steve’s world, once you retire they put your brain in a lock box and you are not permitted to use it any more.
      On the other hand, steve has given up trying to defend the climate scam. Instead all he does is find excuses to ignore anyone who doesn’t agree with what he is paid to support.

    • “Listing IPCC reviwer as a credential is down right funny”

      Right, because Steve McIntyre certainly has no credentials. I think you’re getting senile.

    • Actually the bunch of retired professors is a good sign they are not in it for the money, the way the so called “consensus”with global warming are.

      Why is it funny to list IPCC reviewer in bio? A lot of the first reviewers got disgusted with the way science was prostituted afrer all.

      the “wanna” still beat Greta and the rest of the brain washed kids, no?

      the link for the list is here https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf

    • Albert Einstein could well have listed “retired patent clerk” on his resume, if asked to provide one. Is that considered funny?

    • Steven Mosher,

      I am always interested in the strange things simple-minded people find amusing.

      You write,
      “Listing IPCC reviwer (sic) as a credential is down right funny”

      Funny? Really? I know that little things amuse little minds but your statement makes no sense.

      I am listed as a signatory to the petition as follows:
      “SCIENTISTS AND PROFESSIONALS FROM UNITED KINGDOM
      6. Richard Courtney, Retired Material Scientist, Expert Peer Reviewer of the IPCC”

      That seems a very sensible listing when on 15 September I sent the following email which resulted in the listing.

      Subject: Request to be included in a petition

      Dear Dr Berkhout,

      Please forgive my writing to you in English: I do not speak nor write Italian.

      I have read your excellent petition and I am writing to request that my name be appended to it as a signatory or failing that as a supporter.

      I am an Englishman: (i.e. not an Italian). And I am a retired material scientist (i.e. not an active climate scientist). However, I think my name would be an appropriate addition to your petition for the following reasons.

      I have published in the peer-reviewed literature on climate model validation and on the carbon cycle. Your petition cites the 2009 Report of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and I was a contributor to that document. And, although I am not an American, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) nominated me as an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and I accepted that nomination.

      I hope and request that you will give me the honour of having my name attached to your excellent petition, and I am copying this request to the email discussion group, global warming realists (GWR), who informed me of it.

      Yours sincerely

      Richard S Courtney

      As you can see, I admitted to being a “has been” but you are a never will be.
      So, Stephen Mosher, please explain the mystery of your amusement at the listing.

      Richard

    • Steven,
      You’re just having fun and winding us up, right?
      Retired people?
      You mean like Freeman Dyson? Professor Will Happer?Richard Lindzen?And then there’s …….
      Unqualified people? Al Gore. Tim Flannery.
      Stop,I get the joke.

    • Mosher … never waz! (cant be a haz been)

      Seriously Mosh, why are you here?

      Can’t be much fun being a perpetual troll … why don’t you go help some poor folk in Africa

      Get a life

    • An English major (who can’t even fix simple typos on his phone) wannabe scientist referring to actual scientists with decades of experience in their fields as “has-beens” is what is truly hilarious. Shame Mosh doesn’t have the self-awareness to realize that.

      • Mosher is correct. Virtually none on the list have worked in climate science in their careers. while he has been immersed despite not having basic science education. Clowns and poseurs on the list include Monckton (who runs from debate when getting his clock cleaned by potholer54) and Richard Courtney ( no science education or climate science research. Start there and then tell me how journalists and medical doctors add gravitas to this list of venal, fossil fuel shills?

        • Rob,

          You make two personal statements about me; i.e. “no science education or climate science research”. Both are falsehoods.

          If you wish to make personal statements then please make them about yourself.

          Richard

          • @Richard

            I can find no evidence to support your assertions. Everything I find contradicts what you are vehemently denying. Again, point me to the evidence and I will make amends if need be.

          • Rob,

            There is no requirement for any person to provide personal information demanded by anonymous internet trolls.

            I have learned the hard way that it is not possible to prove anything to such trolls. I have informed you that you have told specific lies about me, and you have responded by saying you don’t believe me. It is certain that you will dispute any evidence I state in response to that.

            APOLOGISE.
            Then, as I said, if you wish to make personal statements then please make them about yourself.

            Richard

            (He is Permanently BANNED) SUNMOD

          • SUNMOD,

            Sincere thanks. Your action has avoided any need for me to defend myself by taking actions I do not want to take.

            Richard

      • Oh look, the troll that denies the reality of the climate gate emails (calling them “fiction”) and then lies about doing so is back. Keep dancing troll, and we’ll keep laughing (at you).

        • A reply of no substance with the word “troll” shows you are a simple-minded, weak character who is easily defeated by thos of us who are informed and experts in climate science. Unless you have scrutinized the source data yourself and are an expert in climate science, then the principle nullius in verba applies.

          Climategate emails are a fictional meme among denizens of the science denial cult and climate fiction claques. Known cures: 1. education 2. do not remain aliterateThis regurgitation of spin by people who are basically apologists against the scientific consensus that humanity is largely responsible for recent global warming is not worth my or your attention. You are the kind of person who thinks a cold day is proof that global warming is nonsense then Climategate is your ignorant bailiwick. Climategate is nothing less than the misrepresentation of an egregious act of data theft against a respected UK university.

          (Policy remineder: “Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted;..”) SUNMOD

        • John Endicott,

          You say the troll who repeatedly attempts to malign me calls the ‘climategate’ emails “fiction”.

          In that case these links will really wind it up.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/

          https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we02.htm

          Please note that the latter link would put me in jail for perjuring Parliament if it were untrue.

          Richard

  19. Recently, under a ‘Thunberg’ news item, I had commented: Yes, lots of kids, lots of journalists, lots of politicians, BUT WHERE ARE THE SCENTISTS?

    Thankfully here they are, but I am pretty sure that the kids, the journalists and the politicians will do their damnest to kill the scientists’ message.

    But hope springs eternal.

  20. Is there a way that scientists and engineers who are “Climate Change – global warming” skeptics join this new group? The many many thousands who would sign up would no doubt overwhelm the “97% Scam.

  21. I’m glad we/skepticism is taking what seems to be a credible stand but the challenge will be getting the MSM to report this is even happening much less the groups’ progress. So far the media has been 100% behind AGW and not allowing dissenting voices to be heard….. be design, not choice.

  22. This effort is destined to fail. It is too rational. It lacks Marvin, the paranoid android. How do you translate “Marvin” to Swedish?

  23. What’s the status of petition project.org these days? 31,000 sceptic American scientists with 9000 PhDs can’t br wrong? Is it defunct? Add them in!

  24. Is this the start of scientists standing up for science? Let’s hope so! That is the one movement the Eco nutters must fear.

  25. “Professor Richard Lindzen, the world’s foremost climate scientist, is also a signatory, and is the Group’s Ambassador to the United States of America.”

    Mmmm…. didn’t Lindzen retire in 2013?

      • And you base that on his previous work obviously. Don’t get me wrong he is a sharp cookie. He accepts mans part in the warming, but like most scientists on this side of the fence (Spencer, Curry) thinks the problems wont be that bad. Still it’s a stretch to say a guy who is no longer working in the field is the “worlds foremost climate scientist.”

        • Simon,

          Lindzen is by far the world’s foremost climate scientist because of his body of work in the field of climatology. Hence, his opinions on the subject of climatology are persuasive.

          The fact that he retired a few years ago do not (and cannot) alter those facts.
          And those facts are not affected by anonymous internet concern trolls not liking them.

          Lesser scientists are still working in the field, but so what?

          Richard

        • “Still it’s a stretch to say a guy who is no longer working in the field …”

          He’s no longer teaching classes. But maybe he has an on-campus office. Presumably he’s still reading journals in his field, and conversing with colleagues, etc. Perhaps he’s still doing some writing.

          • Simon,

            You say of Richard Lindzen, he “hasn’t published a paper since retirement”.
            So what?

            Has Michael Mann published an apology for his ‘hockey stick’ yet? His first version of that travesty was in 1998 (MBH98).
            Or has Kevin Trenberth at last admitted that his ‘missing heat’ shows his version of AGW is nonsense?
            Or has Ben’ Santer provided the needed apology for his attempt to pretend he had found evidence of AGW in the 1990s?
            Or etc.

            Value of scientific work is determined by the usefulness of the work.

            The value of scientific work is not indicated by how long since it was published: if it were then the works of Newton, Faraday and Einstein would be worthless by now.

            Richard Lindzen is undoubtedly the greatest living climatologist (e.g. his ‘climate iris’ is being used in papers published during the past month) and your attempts to denigrate him fail completely.

            Richard

          • A very immature and puerile comment. The writer is obviously not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. The reader can review the veracity fo this at https://www.desmog.co.uk/richard-s-courtney

            Scientists are graded and rated by their peers and history. Mann is rated in the top 50 living US scientists today by the NSF. Courtney is confused as to how science advances and MBH98 is seminal climate science, now strong theory being corroborated over 45 times by published peer-reviewed articles in noted scientific journals.

            Lindzen, was a great meteorologist and professor of meteorology at MIT. He proposed the Iris effect, and it turns out to be right but in the exact opposite direction, he predicted. How did he miss so bad? He only calculated outgoing radiation changes and not incoming. Seems pretty obvious. Other than that, Lindzen fossil fuel and ex-tobacco shill has not contributed anything worthwhile. he also lost a Court Case for his client in 2016 with fellow creationists and contrarian fossil fuel propagandists, Spencer and Happer who were admonished by the judge for not using peer-reviewed science but conspiracy and junk science from WUWT, Heartland Inst., etc.

            So, NO, not the greatest climate scientists living today despite amateur and poseur Cortney’s adulation and prejudiced feelings. My schadenfreude has no limits to know that the venal scientist will probably never get his exorbitant fees reimbursed as he’s listed as a creditor in Peabody’s subsequent bankruptcy filing.

          • Rob

            It seems to me this ‘list’ is becoming somewhat of a challenge to you, so that you could stop starting attacking and smearing some of the people that have been listed?

            I am interested reading about your credentials? But there is no link to your name, not even a surname….

            I have learned a lot from my encounters with Richard S. Courtney here on WUWT and I am sorry that you did not learn anything from him. Indeed, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.
            You can click on my name to learn more about me and my research on natural climate change.

          • Geagte Boet Hendrik,
            Anonymity does not alter one’s knowledge or education, in fact it makes it stronger by removing bias. As a white Afrikaner/Hollander, you already carry the bias of being a vile christian supremacist and racist being a supporter of apartheid. That’s a pretty tough hurdle to overcome and you probably would have benefitted from staying anonymous. Perhaps you have evolved on this issue and now support your opposition because they provide a strong counter to the ANC but have you managed to beat back your indoctrinated demons? How do you feel about the recent exposé of senior apartheid cabinet ministers and their pedophile rings flying to islands (using military assets) at the height of segregation, akin to our Epstein and Trump with underage girls? Your memory immigrating to South Africa in 1976 (for which you were most likely reimbursed for by the apartheid government with a settlement stipend too, all while the majority of South Africans were denied their basic rights) was drought and not the famous children’s uprising in the Soweto riots? Think Greta! Viva Greta! Long live Greta! A luta continua, vitória é certa!

            I too have learned from Courtney, climate fiction apologists are usually not educated or experienced and regurgitate what they glean from their bubbles. I read your thoughts and efforts on climate change on your website and conclude you are scientifically illiterate and nescient when it comes to climate science. South Africa has great scientists that have contributed much to this modern world through discoveries and inventions. One of the most recent being the 3-D printing and implanting of the ear bones in a patient who had lost their hearing due to an auto accident in your very city of Pretoria.

            I visit South Africa less often these days now that I am retired and will contact you next time I am scheduled to review some ongoing projects so we can have a debate and raise some funds for charity. The winner gets two thirds for their nominated charity and the loser one third for theirs. Mine would be Cotlands, a hospice for HIV/AIDS babies. The debate moderator can be UP climate scientist with a panel of two professionals (one of your choice and one of mine) whom as a minimum must be Earth scientists or Geographers with climatology experience. Their secret vote will determine the winner. I am a PG in the US (PA) and P.Sci.Nat in RSA and ISO14000 Certified 14000 auditor (all active, in the retired category).

            (A reminder of policy: “Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted….Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion…”) SUNMOD

          • Rob
            I am amazed by your comment
            you claim to have read my relevant blog post (click on my name), yet you call me a racist? Perhaps you cannot even read properly? I wrote that I and many others fought 18 years (counting from the year that I arrived, i.e. 1976) to bring an end to apartheid and I did keep the evidence to prove it, even my letters to Prof. Heyns {the leader of the Dutch Reformed Church] who was then murdered for taking the right side… Indeed, if we had not won that battle [of the minds], this country [ South Africa] would have ended in a very bloody civil war, as you well know. The similarities with the US an RSA are in fact uncanny, except for the fact of a few decades difference, e.g. a great spiritual leader like Martin Luther King being murdered just like Prof. Heyns was.
            [I did visit Atalanta some time ago and perhaps a visit by you to the MLK centre might be worth your while]

            For the record, Indeed, my ticket was paid for, as would have been the case if I had chosen Canada [too cold] or Australia [no friends or family]. There was no other financial support, other than a payment for a few days in the hotel until you find a job. I had no problem with that….

            Indeed, one of the foster homes that we are supporting financially is in need of renovations and we urgently need about $15000. I will gladly debate with you that there is no man made global warming, or if indeed if it does exist, it is so small that I could not find it
            as reported,
            http://breadonthewater.co.za/2018/05/04/which-way-will-the-wind-be-blowing-genesis-41-vs-27/

            I am sure it would be an interesting debate?

            (This is getting off topic…) SUNMOD

          • Geagte Boet Pool,

            I can find no evidence of you being an anti-apartheid activist as assert on your website. I am well contected with that tiny white minority although many have passed on. The most recent I know of being Theo Hefer, who was dubbed by Van Zyl Slabberet as being more Marxist than Marx in jest during the clandestine times as apartheid was drawing to an end and the government was desperately seeking allies sto help it out of its mess and negotiate with the ANC. I cannot find you in the database at the Christian Institute of anti-apartheid activists. So where would I get corroboration so that I can apologize if I maligned you in that respect? Heyns was no MLK, even my dear friend Desmond Tutu would not make that claim and he probably caused the collapse of Apartheid as much as the Pope knocked off communism during the cold war. And yes I have visited MLK museum in Atlanta several times, the last was this past July. BTW: I do admire you taking care of the poor, that is commendable and I hope you do so without proselytizing.

            I have looked at your work and it doesn’t make sense mixing coastal stations and inland stations as the former are influenced by the ocean. I have worked on many projects as a specialist consultant on earth, weather, climate and other environmental issues throughout southern Africa that required paleoclimate and weather data (that go back to the 19th century). Don’t know why you start your analyses in the 1970s. Unfortunately, many are mining and top-secret classified and involve a well known nuclear facility near you and other shared (with US, Israel, and EU cooperation) southern African military installations. One positive to military sites is the wildlife re-establishes itself quickly and flourishes.

          • Rob
            We r going off topic here. Sunmod is right.
            You can contact me by email and I will answer.
            From what I saw, I will defend all people on the list including Guus who started this initiative.

          • @moderator

            You placed this footer on my reply to henryp:

            (A reminder of policy: “Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted….Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion…”) SUNMOD

            I cannot make that statement comport with my reply. I am trying to be a court citizen in your dictatorship/censorship world as you apparently are not consistent when I peruse the comments. For my edification, please advise me as to where or what contravened your policy. Otherwise, I will have to assume or consider that you are being discriminatory.

            [calling someone “racist” is a personal attack – stop it – mod]

          • (This comments stays in moderation, NOT ON TOPIC, and wasting moderators time) SUNMOD

            ( FOURTH time you are given a policy warning today, “Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted;…Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted”) SUNMOD

            @moderator
            Your false assertion is not supported by the evidence.

            Moderator:
            [calling someone “racist” is a personal attack – stop it – mod]

            Me:
            As a white Afrikaner/Hollander, you already carry the bias of being a vile christian supremacist and racist being a supporter of apartheid. With all due respect, it is clear I did not call him a racist but specifically used the qualifier “bias” which also can be replaced with “handle or mantle”.

            [ This is what you wrote: “As a white Afrikaner/Hollander, you already carry the bias of being a vile christian supremacist and racist being a supporter of apartheid.”

            You used the word racist in a derogatory way. There’s no dispute.

            You are back on a time out, 96 hours this time. There will not be any further times out after this if you continue to call people names, and insult them in other ways. Clean up you act or you will be permanently banned – mod]

          • Rob,

            You say to the mod,
            “I cannot make that statement comport with my reply. I am trying to be a court citizen in your dictatorship/censorship world as you apparently are not consistent when I peruse the comments. For my edification, please advise me as to where or what contravened your policy. Otherwise, I will have to assume or consider that you are being discriminatory.”

            Discriminatory?!!
            In several posts distributed through this thread you have repeatedly claimed I have no qualifications and I have conducted no climate research. Also, you have attempted to bolster those falsehoods by linking to a smear site.

            That defamatory behaviour is clearly sufficient to have you banned from any site.
            Indeed, it is sufficient misbehaviour that I could take action against WUWT for publishing those posts of yours that are hidden behind a coward’s screen of anonymity.

            Richard

            (Moderators know about it, he is now BANNED) SUNMOD

  26. In New Zealand 2 media companies (APN and Fairfax) control 74% of daily newspapers. They both have signed on to a global media group dedicated to constantly emphasise the “climate emergency”. The online version for Fairfax is Stuff. Never goes a day without an alarmist piece on climate. They used to allow comments which were dominated by skeptics. Any comments I have made in the past using real data with sources were never published.

    Now, guess what? – no more comments section associated with climate stories.

    The full list of the media climate consortium is here:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/114526071/stuff-joins-over-60-global-news-outlets-taking-strong-stance-on-climate-change-coverage?rm=a

    Cheers

    M

    • In about 2000, Stuff published an article (I wonder if it can be found on the Wayback Machine?), a meteorologist I don’t recall the name who wrote it, however the author went on to say that there had been no significant increase in temperatures across NZ over the past 40 years or more. The article was quickly removed. The media is heavily controlled in NZ, always has been.

      I used to work for BNZ in Wellington and worked with the son of Augie Auer, an atmospheric scientist and meteorologist. He didn’t believe in the climate change narrative either. Unfortunately, he died a few years ago.

    • As an expat kiwi I follow the papers including stuff and cannot believe what I read. Current Incidences of seawater washing over the road near Eastbourne and Plimmerton are attributed to climate change, but the exact same thing happened over 50 years ago when I lived there. It is simply a combination of high tide and a strong southerly. What happened to the facts?

      • Are you saying the sea hasn’t risen since then? Erosion around the coast (and in the harbour) has certainly stepped up.

        • You forget the land around Wellington has risen many times in the past. The land the airport is on wasn’t there in 1840. And I too recall sea lapping over the road at Eastbourne too. Nothing unusual there.

          • The last time Wellington came up was in 1855 when the big one hit. And you are missing the point. As the water rises the problems compound around Wellington and other sea level cities. And it is happening. No amount of denying it will make it stop.

          • Don’t recall any pavement plaques in Wellington along Lambton Quay showing the shoreline in 1855, certainly 1840 was the significant one. I guess that’s why they were put there to remind people.

            Have a look at the land around Pencarrow Head, might give you an idea. Lake Wairarapa was considerably bigger in 1840 too.

            Talking of level cites, say Portsmouth, Gosport, Exeter even Emsworth in the UK show no significant sea level changes for HUNDREDS of years.

          • https://my.christchurchcitylibraries.com/wellington-earthquake/

            1855 was the big one as you can see. Yes the land goes up and down in Welly but that has little to do with sea level rise… which it is. I know Pencarrow head well. Love it, great fishing. That’s close to where Dr Dave Lowe did his now famous CO2 atmospheric recordings.

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/115040931/kiwi-dave-lowe-found-measurable-proof-of-climate-change-50-years-ago–hes-watched-in-horror-ever-since

          • Interesting read there Simon however, there is no proof of man-made climate change in that article.

            “The first ever CO2 reading at Baring Head was 326 Parts Per Million. The most recent reading was 409 Parts Per Million.”

            So in 50 years, CO2 concentrations at that monitoring station have risen, and according to Mr. Lowe, that is proof of man-made climate change?

            The article also states Mr. Lowe had to “constantly” fly between Wellington and California. I guess he wasn’t too worried about that carbon footprint. No mention of his qualifications. Interesting the Stuff article is dated just last month and shows the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France, with a thermometer. Just like the heatwave scare a few months ago, someone read a thermometer, on a tiled roof, that is not part of the official network is proof of climate change?

  27. Great stuff Lord Monckton!
    Please keep us informed of any successes and activities.

    If I had a significant academic degree in climate science or something related I would volunteer my signature. Unfortunately my degree is in economics.

    Cheers

    Roger

  28. In relation to this paragraph in the article:
    The Group will also establish friendly relations with other independent-minded entities worldwide that are dedicated to the advancement of true science free of totalitarian taint:

    Philipp Welte points out the importance of keeping the existence and culture of the about 600 publishers in Germany going, in order to combat the widespread fake news, the democracy and the political influence of Google, Amazon and Facebook. Google’s advert revenue in 2018 in Germany was EUR 4*10^12, where as the 22000 journalists at German publishers had a revenue of EUR 800*10^6.
    Here he speaks at the Publisher Congress:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HUMf5gKxJQ
    It is about 20 min and the first 15min are his own words, then the last 5min is commented in German. But, the first 15min are really fascinating.

  29. I would also like to get updates. Since the group will have an online presence, why can’t they add a non-scientist subscription option?; with an option to receive email updates.

  30. Thanks for investing brain power against the mindless climate hype.
    I get afraid when I see the kind of aggressive mobs on the street manifesting their frustrations towards their own society, using climate change as pretext to be against their own base of existence: economy, wealth, growth and activity.
    I get sad when I see children being abused in a children’s crusade, being indoctrinated and filled with hatred, worse than it was done in communist or in fascist societies.
    Let us concentrate on a responsible way of producing and consuming. Let us break down governmental regulations that frustrate initiatives for making earth a better place. And let us clean up our own homes first before we pretend to want to clean up our neighbor’s houses.

  31. The idea of online universities on the model of the Open University and Liberty University is also being considered by some members of the Group, and the possibility of establishing an internet based home-schooling network for pupils aged 3 to 18 is also under consideration.

    This part of the initiative intrigues me and seems just as important as the effort to address erroneous publications and press releases. “Traditional” K-12 schools and universities have become bastions of climate science and are now expected to propagate and contribute to the movement which has codified the notions that CO2 is a pollutant causing the Earth to warm dangerously, and that humans are to blame.

    Last week Caltech announced it is receiving a $750 million gift, the second largest donation ever given to a university, to “enhance and scale research on sustainability.”

    The funds will “permit Caltech to tackle issues of water, energy, food, and waste in a world confronting rapid climate change,” said President Thomas F. Rosenbaum. All first-year students at Caltech will now rotate through new undergraduate teaching labs, and the core curriculum will be redesigned to incorporate sustainability and engineering material.

    It appears that skeptics of “anthropogenic climate change science” cannot keep pace with these kinds of gifts and their enforcement of climate science dogma in traditional classrooms. However, alternative technologies are evolving to allow sound, structured science curricula to be presented. One might hope that the signatories to the statement above, many of whom are educators, will give us a series of “Great Courses”, and that these will be archived. Such courses, as much as the p.r. efforts suggested in the bullet points of the opening post, will be necessary to debunk the ongoing misconceptions targeting school aged youngsters from the left. The facts must be continually re-asserted. But arguments and reasons must be developed and presented in context. Ideally, students would receive classroom credit, and the individual lectures would be cataloged and saved for re-listening. Such classes could be free or feed.

    I hope you follow through with your educational initiative, though I would argue against the imposition of strict penalties on dissenters unless they disrupt the learning environment for others. Freedom of speech must tolerate questioners.

  32. At last! Some logical debate on both sides of the climate change argument. Let’s hope all minds are open to accepting a different opinion.

  33. I am indescribably happy to see this initiative get off the ground. Let’s hope it can help to reverse some of the mass brainwashing of our children. They are so full of anxiety about the future of the world. It is criminal what these people have done to pretty much an entire generation.

  34. Fantastic news . The world just got saved and it didn’t even take 12 years .
    Thank You Thank You all scientists for stepping up !!
    They got away with it far to long .

    The sheet just got pulled off in front of the wizard of oz pretender .

    And hey kids you heard it …. NO Climate Emergency . The Scientists said so . 500 hundred of them and growing .
    That other talk was just to try and scare you . The rest of us adults apologize for what you were put through .

    We still need to work on protecting the environment but we can do it .
    We are lucky to be in a warming cycle but it will still snow still where it normally does .

    PS: The polar bears are just fine .

    • You realize most of these scientists are writers, engineers, or geologist with no history in climate science, right? Most also come from right-wing think-tanks funded by the fossil fuel industry

      Still, if 500 scientists is enough to convince you then I can give you a couple thousand that agree man is driving global warming.

      https://skepticalscience.com/joint-statements-on-climate-change-from-nas-around-world.html

      https://skepticalscience.com/denier-5-arguments-to-eu-un-leaders.html

      The idea that “CO2 isn’t a pollutant because it’s plant food” is also laughably unscientific. Fertilizer is plant food, it’s also a regulated pollutant because if traces get into your water supply, it will kill you. If you dump to much into the environment it will kill most plant life. Also, most species of plants DO NOT experience boosted growth from increasing CO2 levels, the few that do only do so in greenhouse lab settings. If a few plants do experience boosted growth, they’ll consume more water and soil nutrients. Which in turn will crowd out and kill out other plant species, which will shatter food chains, drain the soil and water table, and lead toward eventual desertification.

      https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

      • Thanks, Sean, for bringing some actual facts into this extremely misguided post and discussion. The science is clear: climate change is happening, it is caused by humans and in many aspects is progressing faster than predicted. Backed by actual measurements.

        • Walker
          You r clueless as to why climate change is happening. Click on my name to understand the occurrence of natural climate change. This had been occurring like time immemorial?

  35. Walker
    You r clueless as to why climate change is happening. Click on my name to understand the occurrence of natural climate change. This had been occurring like time immemorial?

Comments are closed.