Via press release:
This new website will debunk the alarmist climate propaganda that dominates the media’s coverage of the environment
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (March 19, 2020) – The Heartland Institute is proud to announce ClimateRealism.com, a new website that debunks climate scares perpetuated in the media. ClimateRealism.com is Heartland’s second new climate website launched this month; ClimateAtAGlance.com debuted last week.
Nearly every day, the establishment media promotes new climate propaganda themes designed to scare people into believing a climate crisis is at hand. When the Climate Scare goes unrebutted, people are likely to believe by default that the propaganda is true. Yet most of the media’s climate propaganda is misleading or outright false. ClimateRealism.com will address and debunk the media’s most prominent climate-related tall tales.
“The alarmist Climate Delusion depends on people being uninformed or misinformed,” said Heartland Institute President James Taylor. “ClimateRealism.com will provide policymakers, media, and the general public with timely and easy-to-understand information that debunks media-peddled climate scares. No longer will the public have to blindly accept the climate propaganda they see on television or read on the internet.”
“With updates provided in response to these scares, people will want to make ClimateRealism.com a part of their daily internet routine,” Taylor added.
Regular updates at ClimateRealism.com will feature concise Heartland-authored articles, as well as summaries and links to articles written by other climate realists. The regular articles are designed to explain the truth behind the media’s climate scares in a clear, succinct manner. Links within the articles will direct readers to supporting facts and information.
ClimateRealism.com will also serve as a portal linking to additional climate resources, such as Heartland’s new Climate-at-a-Glance website. ClimateAtAGlance.com provides compelling, easy to digest one- and two-page summaries of frequently discussed climate issues, such as hurricanes, droughts, species impacts, and more. The summaries are particularly valuable for policymakers, teachers, and students.
To speak to Mr. Taylor about Heartland’s two new websites—ClimateRealism.com and ClimateAtAGlance.com—please contact Deputy Director of Communications Keely Drukala at media@heartland.org and 312/377-4000 or (cell) 312/282-1390.
The Heartland Institute is a 36-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. The Economist magazine called Heartland “the leading think tank promoting skepticism of man-caused climate change.” The organization has sponsored 13 International Conferences on Climate Change and published the 6,000-page Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
###
Sounds like a great idea, but how do you get the green left to read it or the MSM to print it? We are working against a stacked deck.
It’s not for them. It’s for people who don’t really know much, who just repeat lines they’ve heard from friends without understanding. Here is a place (I hope!) where you can go for some facts which may make them reconsider or at least have some doubt.
Did they change the name from “Climate at a Glance” from a few days ago? Hmmm – I see it’s still there
https://climateataglance.com/
Two different sites.
Meanwhile, here’s Michael Mann’s letter to the editor in today’s Boston Globe
“I am relieved to see policy makers treating the coronavirus threat with the urgency it deserves. They need to do the same when it comes to an even greater underlying threat: human-caused climate change.
In a recent column (“I’m skeptical about climate alarmism, but I take coronavirus fears seriously,” Ideas, March 15), Jeff Jacoby sought to reconcile his longstanding rejection of the wisdom of scientific expertise when it comes to climate with his embrace of such expertise when it comes to the coronavirus.
In so doing, Jacoby took my words out of context, mischaracterizing my criticisms of those who overstate the climate threat “in a way that presents the problem as unsolvable, and feeds a sense of doom, inevitability, and hopelessness.”
As I have pointed out in past commentaries, the truth is bad enough when it comes to the devastating impacts of climate change, which include unprecedented floods, heat waves, drought, and wildfires that are now unfolding around the world, including the United States and Australia, where I am on sabbatical.
The evidence is clear that climate change is a serious challenge we must tackle now. There’s no need to exaggerate it, particularly when it feeds a paralyzing narrative of doom and hopelessness.
There is still time to avoid the worst outcomes, if we act boldly now, not out of fear, but out of confidence that the future is still largely in our hands. That sentiment hardly supports Jacoby’s narrative of climate change as an overblown problem or one that lacks urgency.
While we have only days to flatten the curve of the coronavirus, we’ve had years to flatten the curve of CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, thanks in part to people like Jacoby, we’re still currently on the climate pandemic path.
Michael E. Mann
State College, Pa.
The writer is a professor at Penn State University, where he is director of the Earth System Science Center.”
Michael Mann,
There is no objective scientific evidence of severe, detrimental changes to the Australian climate history, since 1900 or so.
There might have been a national warming of about half a degree C in that time, but the observations are not good enough to confirm this.
There has been no increase in flood severity.
There has been no increase in heatwave length, intensity or frequency in our Capital cities, home to the vast majority of Australians (with some minor exceptions).
The 2019-20 wild fires were severe, but not substantially worse than other bad fires since 1900.
Droughts are forever with us. The “Federation Drought” around 1900 was as bad as any later drought, when viewed using several main criteria.
The frequency and intensity of cyclones making landfall since 1900 has more likely decreased than worsened.
There are many published, peer-reviewed papers that support my broad contentions here. They are easy to find, a chore to list here. There are also papers supporting Dr Mann. The main reason for the contradiction is probably related to use of historic data unfit for the purpose of past climate reconstruction.
Attributions like an event being X% worse because of climate change are silly and beyond the ability of science to show. They are simply personal opinions dressed up.
The pity is that Australian officials, who must be well aware of reality, are inclined to avoid endorsement of papers opposing Dr Mann’s wishful thinking. Maybe their support of global warming hypotheses was getting too wishy-washy so Dr Mann visited here to give people pep talks. Sadly for him, Science does not progress by pep talks. Geoff S
Geoff, It has all become talk. At least they once offered scientific arguments, but with most of these handily debunked, they now have fallen back on repetitive, information free talking points as advised by the great propagandists of the 20th Century.
Michael E. Mann hasn’t done any science since his work with lanthanide ceramics back in 1990.
His climate models produce physically meaningless results.
His proxy paleo air temperature reconstructions have no known connection to physics at all.
For all his academic honors and standing, his career is a wasteland.
Did Dr. Mann fly, sail or swim to Australia? If he flew, did the plane use electricity or bio-diesel? Why didn’t he spend his sabbatical at home?
“I am relieved to see policy makers treating the coronavirus threat with the urgency it deserves. They need to do the same when it comes to an even greater underlying threat”
Except that one’s a real threat and the other’s an underlying threat imagined by lying bastards.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/24/the-mann/
I would love to know how “climate change” is an “underlying threat” in regards to COVID-19.
I’d say it has to do with Headlines and responses (especially $$) going to handle a genuine threat rather an imaginary one.
I wonder if Mann and Hansen ever met, sat in a ‘smoke filled room,’ and deliberately planned the whole thing.
Fourier, Tyndall, Arrenhuis and Callendar were in the room with them.
All of whom thought the projected warming would be beneficial.
Show us where those scientists believed the result would be catastrophic weather and disaster extremes.
They were right about the warming, wrong about its deleterious effects.
Where exactly are these imaginary deleterious effects?
2 or 3 degrees of warming. 100% beneficial (Not that the warming is going to get above 0.2 to 0.3C)
More CO2 making plants grow more and resist drought better.
Increased CO2 results in increased predation by pests.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18375762
At 550 ppm the nutritional value of food crops is compromised.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3
CO2 fertiizaltion is short-lived.
“While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.””
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
They were right about the warming?
When did Natural Warming from the nadir of the Little Ica Age stop and CO2 enhanced warming begin??
After the coldest period in 10,000 years, be very thankful of the slight warming. !
As usual, when Jack actually does try to present something that looks like facts, he manages to say nothing that is actually true.
If the climate did warm, some insects might get more active, however the insects that eat insects also get more active. Regardless, how much more active will insects get when the world warms by less than half a degree.
Another half truth, yes the average amount of protein in plants has gone done in a few experiments that were carefully designed to show that affect. However the total amount of plant mass more than makes up for it.
Out here in the real world, no plant has ever shown an “acclimatization” to higher CO2 levels. Once again Jack relies on inuendo and outright falsehoods to try and support what has been paid to support.
George provides no science to support his assertions.
Make that Mark W provides no science to support his assertions.
Jack, Pot, Kettle, Black
Just out
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-global-extreme-weather-events-frequently.html
Apparently anything, no matter how ill founded, so long as it agrees with Jack’s delusions counts as evidence.
@ Jack Dale
Climate scientists, including all highly credentialed, are not automatically qualified to comment on warming trends in temperature records, nor are they necessarily qualified as “peers” to validate the analysis of warming trends presented by others.
One peer group for analyzing temperature readings, such as the near-Billion-recordings in GHCN, are data mavins, professionals, those of us (I am qualified) who understand how to parse, compute, index, and graph huge datasets. We are experts at detecting false conclusions and slick tricks in statistics.
Anyone, such as you, Mr Dale, heavily invested in the fallacy of Appeal To Authority, cannot escape the reality that the non-climate scientist peer group has exposed truths which refute the false peer group. For instance, how the model-building believers of Tyndall et al have been nullified by the hard data to the contrary, which refuses to conform to the models.
You have a fairly typical naive view of appeal to authority. There are legitimate reasons to accept the views of authorities.
“Be very careful not to confuse “deferring to an authority on the issue” with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. ”
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority
On Covid-19, do you accept what Trump says ot or what Dr Fauci says?
In other words, don’t you dare question my authorities.
I really do find it fascinating how upset trolls get when others fail to bow down at the word of their “authorities”.
By the way, you are not telling us to defer to “authorities”, you have been telling us to stop complaining and get in line because those you wish to be authorities have spoken.
BTW, a few posts up Jack got quite offended when I pointed out that he wasn’t thinking for himself.
Now he tells us that we need to “defer” to those he considers authorities.
In other words, just do as you are told and don’t think for yourself.
That “think for yourself” meme tends to come from folks like you who ignore their own advice.
Evasion.
Not only did you not address my challenge — the proper peer group — your citing of the extended explanation of Appeal to Authority only sinks your ship faster. The link and quote from your source is pathetic. It attempts to validate Appeals on their face as the default confirmation, with a mild advisory of remote possibility of error. That is laughable.
Automatic default reifying of one council as legitimate experts to the exclusion of others by The Argument From Intimidation turns good cross-checking into political membership by confirmation bias.
Especially when the validation of the Authority in question here has been nullified by reality.
Did Pattern Recognition in Physics use the proper peer group?
https://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/
I see that Jack still can’t be bothered to do anything other than insult those who refuse to worship as he does.
Mark stalking is getting creepy.
And yet more evasion.
But clearly not Simpson.
Simpson, G.C. (1929) The Distribution of Terrestrial Radiation. Memoirs of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol. 3, No. 23, 53-78.
http://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/simpsonmemoirs_3.pdf
Your link generates:
“The requested page could not be found.”
he could not be found.
Oops. Revised link
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/papers/simpsonmemoirs_3.pdf
I have another version. https://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/gv219/classics.d/Simpson-studies27.pdf
At what in particular should I be looking?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Then open your eyes and direct me to what you think is relevant.
Seek and ye shall find.
“The requested page could not be found.”
I will have to use the link that I found that actually works.
Simpson revised his position in a later paper.
https://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/gv219/classics.d/Simpson-further28.pdf
In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
The requested page could not be found.
Snap!
Don’t know if they ever met before they each became infamous.
Don’t know if they ever emailed each other.
(That last could easily be cleared up except for …)
Hide the decline. Enough said.
When can we expect TobaccoRealism.com?
It really is sad how alarmists actually think that they are saying something intelligent.
I guess it’s easier than actually thinking for yourself.
I do think for myself. I do not rely on the advise of radio weatherman, children’s entertainers or retired accountants for for my climate science. I apply the CRAAP Test to just about everything.
http://guides.library.duq.edu/informationevaluation/CRAAP
Ah yes, instead of thinking for yourself, you just reject anyone who dares disagree with what you are paid to believe.
BTW, none of the people you worship have degrees in climate science either.
Let’s face it; what is a degree in climate science but a 4+ year indoctrination session.
Actually, there are no degrees in climate science. Few if any of those being touted as “climate scientists” don’t even have degrees in related fields.
https://www.phdportal.com/search/phds/climate-studies-meteorology/#q=di-125|lv-phd?
PS: I love the way you attack the messengers, instead of the actual data and science that they are presenting.
But then again, thinking for yourself was never a skill you managed to master.
When you get called out on your BS, do you always just resort to the Ad Hominem fallacy?
That is not an ad hominem. It is an accurate portrayal of Anthony Watts, Kenneth Richard (aka Rick Cina) and Paul Homewood.
You declared that they aren’t worth listening to because, and then you misrepresent their jobs in a demeaning way.
That’s an ad hominem, even if you aren’t being paid to man up to it.
Jack
Please give me one example where I have got something wrong
You claim ““The theory is that rising sea-surface temperatures should make hurricanes more frequent or more intense or both. But observational data shows that there is no empirical evidence to support the theory.””
Stefan Rahmstorf, Kerry Emanuel, Mike Mann and Jim Kossin refute that.
A significant global increase (95% significance level) can be found in all storms with maximum wind speeds from 175 km/h. Storms of 200 km/h and more have doubled in number, and those of 250 km/h and more have tripled. Although some of the trend may be owing to improved observation techniques, this provides some evidence that a global increase in the most intense tropical storms due to global warming is not just predicted by models but already happening.
However, global warming does not only increase the wind speed or frequency of strong storms (which is actually two ways of looking at the same phenomenon, as frequency depends on wind speed). The average location where the storms are reaching their peak intensity is also slowly migrating poleward (Kossin et al. 2014) and the area where storms occur expands (Benestad 2009, Lucas et al. 2014), which changes patterns of storm risk and increases risk in regions that are historically less threatened by these storms (Kossin et al. 2016).
Most damage caused by tropical storms is not directly caused by the wind, but by water: rain from above, storm surge from the sea. Harvey brought the largest amounts of rain in US history – the probability of such a rain event has increased several times over recent decades due to global warming (Emanuel 2017; Risser and Wehner, 2017; van Oldenborgh et al., 2017). Not least due to global warming, sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate and storm surges are becoming more dangerous. A recent study (Garner et al. 2017), for example, shows that the return period of a certain storm surge height in New York City will be reduced from 25 years today to 5 years within the next three decades. Therefore, storm surge barriers are the subject of intensive discussion in New York (Rahmstorf 2017).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/05/does-global-warming-make-tropical-cyclones-stronger/
I also came across this reference
“Mr Homewood’s pamphlet also cites a review paper on ‘Tropical cyclones and climate change’ by Kevin Walsh and co-authors, but omits any acknowledgement of the following conclusion: “Confidence has now increased to ‘medium’ that in the Atlantic basin, external forcing factors such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols are partly responsible for the increase in TC [tropical cyclone] formation since the comparatively quiescent 1970s–1980s”.”
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/climate-change-deniers-trying-to-fool-the-public-again-about-extreme-weather/
That paper noted that GCMs predict a decline in tropical cyclones, with a strengthening of intensity, which is what is happening.
“Climate models mostly continue to predict future decreases in global TC numbers, projected increases in the intensities of the strongest storms and increased rainfall rates. Sea level rise will likely contribute toward increased storm surge risk. ”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.371
I apply the CRAAP Test to just about everything.
yep, and it shows in your comments, which are invariably CRAAP
“Anthony Watts, Kenneth Richard , and Paul Homewood.”
Argue the science, (of which you have none), not the messenger
Here is a start for yu:
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
Plain English.
Still not even attempting to deal with the evidence, just more appeals to authority.
So the Royal Society and NAS are not presenting evidence? Too funny.
BTW – you do know that Kenneth Richard is the pseudonym for Rick Cina who is a puppeteer in Illinois.
RE Jack:
**Here is a start for yu:
https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf
Plain English.**
As Mark said, there is no evidence there only some descriptions of temperature changes, etc.
They have just repeated the old worn out non facts.
It is obvious that you do not know what real evidence is so you just quote articles.
Start with: Show me ONE study that MEASURES temperature change due to CO2 or human caused CO2.
Answer: ZERO
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study.
http://berkeleyearth.org/
And yet more evasions.
If you spin any faster you might accidentally drill for oil.
The Berkeley study has been well and thoroughly shredded around these parts.
The only people who still us it are those who are paid to.
MarkW, Authoritarianism is the name of the game, which is what you were rightly pointing out. He can only read what he’s allowed to read. Part of his indoctrination is to stick to the script. He doesn’t understand that it’s those people in ‘authority’ who are actually terrified that he might go off script and learn the truth, should he ever have the courage to do some real research.
Love how you folks claim to the keepers of “the truth”. Very cult-like.
Yet Jack, there are those of you who agree to ‘secret science’. As with Mann refusing to back up his science and policies being pushed though based on his research without any verification of his work. Aside from a peer group drawn from buddies and selected leftist thinkers. That’s simply rubber stamping.
It’s not that ‘we’ are keepers of the truth Jack, ‘we’ will, and indeed do readily put the truth ‘out there’, for others to confirm that we are correct. That’s how it’s supposed to happen, that’s how ‘we’ learn from each other.
It’s more that you (collectively) ‘hide’ the truth, and shut us out.
Michael Mann’s data has been publicly available since 2003.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/research/res_pages/MANNETAL98/mbh98.html
Mann’s hockey stick has been replaced over 3 dozen times by different researchers employing different methodologies with different data sets. Jim Milks keeps track of them and provides links to the studies.
http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html
Right now there is a concerted effect to shut me out on this forum.
Interesting, pointing out the many places where Jack doesn’t know what he’s talking about is no defined as being “keepers of the truth”.
More spin from the man who’s only abilities involve appealing to authority and insulting those who don’t worship as he does.
Your obsession with me borders on psychotic.
You say something stupid, I comment.
How is that “obsession”?
Perhaps you are projecting again?
Dr. Philippe Ciais is taking money from tax mafia and is arguing for more taxes. How convenient.
People initiating violence to get their way are disqualified from intellectual discourse.
Nice move, Heartland. I have commented on some Australian experience already. Geoff S
This looks like an “anti-skepticalscience” website. A much needed balance. Without doubt, most people will dismiss it because it is from Heartland, therefore backed by oil money, and assumed to be false information. Wrong, but that is what they will think.
In order for this to be taken seriously, they need to invite alarmist debunkers to explain any errors in the information they present, and have discussions about how those things are interpreted or misrepresented.
Like the article there about NOAAs purposely flawed data. Many people will take issue with that claim and simply not believe it. But if somebody tries to prove it to be a false claim and can’t, then there is a higher degree of validity.
About that article on “flawed data …”
It was an important thing for Anthony Watts to call out the UHI/siting issues with the stations. It was good.
However…the unintended consequence was NOAA’s shutting out of the stations’ recordings, thus breaking the “spaghetti strands’ of 400 stations of USHCN. We have lost the continuity.
I argue that the continuity – the examining of the organic sine curve trend – is more important than the specific accuracy of the stations.
How can we get the data of the 400 shunned stations post 1989?
Good call Kent. Sounds like a return to the scientific method and ‘proper’ peer reviews, truth and real science!
Nah they’ll never go for it.
Congratulations Heartlands Institute! Every step towards a more rational, science-based approach to global warming is to be applauded. I see this very much as a supportive adjunct to Anthony’s award-winning and much-respected blog.
Key will be to QUICKLY respond to the faux science and lunacy we are presented with on a daily basis by the BBC and others. At election times, certainly in the UK, the opposing parties run a ‘rapid rebuttal’ service to misleading and overblown stories in the media.
We need to support this initiative by emailing examples of the usual global warming nonsense that we regularly see in the media to this new website .
Why do all the links shown as ClimateRealism.com lead to something at meltwater.com?
Seems fine from here. Perhaps you mis-typed something?
Tony.
I think what PK is referring to is if you hover over the links and look down to your left, the link says “meltwater.com” although if you click you go to climaterealism.com
I also don’t like to be tracked.
It would help the site ClimateRealism.com if it were secured. The site ClimateAtAGlance.com has the handy https in front.
Other than that, I applaud the dissemination of counterpoint information to the overblown claims of the alarmists.
Nice looking site, loads fast, plenty of interesting information. Goes on my bookmark list. Congratulations to Anthony Watts, Joe and Diane Bast, and the whole Heartland crew.
w.
Not entirely innovative:
http://climaterealists.com/
Speech Preaching for “The End of Climate Change Debate” by Stephen Heins
First, I was there during Dr. Michael Mann’s testimony on March 29, 2017 in front of the Committee of Science, Space, and Technology.
Mann was at his bullying, uncivil, and name-calling best. In fact, during the question and answer period, Mann denied calling fellow panelist Dr. Judith Curry a “denier” earlier interviews he gave. In response, Dr. Curry dryly comment Mann should read his own remarks.
Clearly, Penn State University’s Professor Michael Mann has no sense of humor, nor does he have a sense of irony and neither does Naomi Oreskes.
Speaking at the Annual of University of Michigan Event, Speech Award Winner Mann gave a speech preaching for “The End of Climate Change Debate,” after Michigan’s President Mark Schlissel introduced guest speaker Michael Mann by saying that the University of Michigan will always be “an inalienable forum for discovery, debate, and discussion.”
https://eidclimate.org/anti-energy-researcher-naomi-oreskes-calls-for-regulations-on-free-speech/
Climate Realism…? I thought that was the theme of THIS site! LOL
Maybe they can get across, it’s not C, or even CO too that will be the death of us, it’s CO rona virus. (I’m sure there are snowflakes who could be persuaded that the virus is derived from CO2).
Studies show coronavirus might contain CARBON.
The site needs to run on HTTPS, two reasons: 1) it reduces the likelihood of other people ‘logging’ what you are reading; 2) Google will index it better in its rankings (they favour HTTPS websites over HTTP websites)
Now if you put HTTPS in front it switches to HTTPS, so someone has to configure the web server properly to switch HTTP over to HTTPS automatically (there are plugins for this on WordPress).
Also, the CDN is terrible, for one big reason I won’t disclose here.
There is almost never a reason to have non encrypted anything in the Internet!
Thank you!
I think that Naomi Seibt deserves a lot of credit for promoting “Climate Realism”.
I don[‘t see much discussion of her on the thread of comments, but I haven’t looked around the actual site yet which I will do now. I think she deserves proper credit for this !!!
JPP
I agree with you Jon, she is an articulate and intelligent young lady. If she can capture the attention of large numbers of young people then the ‘Climate Realism’ site could really take off. Her audience would obviously be those less interested in emotional hysteria and those looking for some truth and balance.
Young people are less about tabloids and television news and more about online content anyway so she could potentially reach the people who need most to get through to.
Well, this is an excellent, very promising development.
People, not least youngsters still at school, have been disturbed, and in some case unhinged, by the relentless scaremongering about our CO2 emissions. They need help to get back on a more even keel by seeing just how feeble is the case for alarm, and how deceptive, often by omission, is the scare propaganda.
My first look around ClimateREALISM.com makes me think the folks behind it are going to make a massive contribution to the healing and recovering effort that I hope will spread far and wide.
If we crashed our economy over the fear of a virus, there’s really no point. The stupid is strong and the people weak. After watching the SARS CoV2 reaction, what’s the point? We are fools who have no desire to live or to live free. We are babies, hiding from shadows. It was a worthy effort, but obviously VERY VERY late in the game. Too late.
Climate Reality was realised over a decade ago: http://www.climateis.com