‘Deniers’ of the World, Unite!

Reposted from The Pipeline

Clarice Feldman • 08 Jul, 2020 Crusade’s over, kids. Time to go home.

Much is made of the fact that former “climate change” advocates have now defected to the side of reason. But much more needs to be done to defeat climate change propaganda. The latest defection, as we’ve noted here, is Michael Shellenberger, author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. His arguments are well-documented but he’s been denied a voice in the major media.

The major media shut-outs are not the only way climate change skeptics are made non-persons and their arguments, studies and critiques of the prevailing view silenced. The most important search engine, Google does it, too. David Wojick   tested it by searching his own works and those of other climate change skeptics on Google.

The pattern is obvious — attack the skeptics of climate change alarmism. The ever present use of the wacko DeSmogBlog attacks, usually in the top 5 items and often first or second, is actually pretty funny. But it is also telling, as is the going back many years to pick up attack pieces, while the informational pieces are far more recent. This pattern cannot be accidental; the algorithm is clearly tuned to discredit skeptics of climate change alarmism.

The interesting question: is this illegal? After all Google boasts that it has billions of dollars invested in renewable energy. Skepticism of alarmism probably threatens those investments. Deliberately discrediting people in order to protect or enhance your business interests sounds illegal to me. Maybe there is even a class action suit in this.

This censoring of contrary opinion on climate change is not merely a matter of free speech and inquiry. It’s critical, because it’s likely to be the next woke campaign—overturning western civilization by piling on the moral panic which has already led to such absurdities as denouncing terms like “master bedroom” and “blacklisting,” and demolishing statues of abolitionists because of some fancied connotations of slavery and racism. (I did Google Michael Shellenberger and see Google’s algorithms have not yet made him a non-person. His most recent works and statements are at the top.)

The censoring of climate skeptics is or should be of interest to more than those of us interested in this issue. It’s likely to be the next “woke” campaign theme. And the censoring is likely to be even more extreme. Using the Forbes deletion of Shellenberger’s article as a warning, the author, Ross Clark, concludes:

A US journalist who tried to find out why was issued only with the following statement: ‘Forbes requires its contributors to adhere to strict editorial guidelines. This story did not follow those guidelines, and was removed.’ It is not hard to decode: a bunch of climate alarmists decided that Shellenberger is inconvenient to their cause and have tried to cancel him by complaining to the website – and the website caved in…

The attempt to classify climate change ‘denialism’ as a hate crime has been coming for quite a while. The very use of the word ‘denial’ is an attempt to put anyone skeptical of climate alarmism in the same pigeonhole as holocaust deniers.

There are so many fine blogs on the subject, including The Pipeline, Wattsupwiththat, and Climate Audit, for example, the question no longer is who can refute the silliness of the doomsday movement, but how can we make our voices heard in the face of the media-attempted blackout and the education establishments’ embrace of  climate alarmism?

Battling phantoms since 1212.

School children are especially vulnerable to the climate-change movement, which is the genius of using Greta Thunberg to appeal to the public on this issue. She’s a modern Stephen of Cloyes who’d lead frenetic children on a disastrous endeavor—in this case abolishing the fossil fuels that keeps us living well.  Her backers use her to inspire a repeat of the ill-fated Children’s’ Crusade, because children are so lacking in knowledge and experience an emotional appeal is most effective on them.

So, how do we reach the young formative minds? I went to the National Education Association’s website for its statement: “Climate Change Education: Essential Information for Educators.”  It directs teachers to a series of reports by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, PBS, and the KQED Education network. Picking one such study at random, the NOAA study, teachers will learn things like this:

Impacts from climate change are happening now. These impacts extend well beyond an increase in temperature, affecting ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. Things that we depend upon and value — water, energy, transportation, wildlife, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health — are experiencing the effects of a changing climate.

Or, to take a second example, the KQED Education Network:

Scientists around the globe have noticed that over the last 40 years Earth, as a whole, has been warming. This phenomenon, known as global warming, is affecting regional climates differently. For example, some regions may experience warmer summers, while other regions may see winters with heavier snowstorms.

A rise in Earth’s average temperature isn’t always immediately apparent. For example, some places still get snowy winters, which might appear to contradict the idea of global warming. (Check out Andy Warner’s comic to learn how global warming can actually lead to heavier snowfall). So, how do scientists know Earth is warming?

The NEA lists its “Green Partners,” among them:

I stopped at the first, Earth Day Network, where I learned, “Our food system accounts for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, making animal agriculture one of the largest contributors to climate change. Food production and consumption are rapidly deteriorating the planet. And what we’re eating is pushing the planet to the breaking point on climate change and deforestation.”

My point is as far as I can tell, the NEA guides for teachers rely on sources in which no countervailing opinions seem readily to appear, and often make assertions of fact which are simply untrue. This underscores what Paul Driessen wrote last year.

From kindergarten onward, our young people are repeatedly told that they, our wildlife and our planet face unprecedented cataclysms from manmade climate change, resulting from our fossil fuel use. The science is settled, they are constantly hoodwinked, and little or no discussion is allowed in classrooms.

They thus hear virtually nothing about the growing gap between computer model predictions and satellite temperature measurements; questions about data manipulation by scientists advocating the dangerous manmade climate change narrative; the hundreds of scientists who do not agree with the supposed “consensus” on manmade climate chaos; or the absence of any real-world evidence to support claims of carbon dioxide-driven coral bleaching, species extinctions, or the seemingly endless litany of ever more absurd assertions that fossil fuel emissions are making sharks right-handed, arctic plants too tall, pigs skinnier and salmon unable to detect danger, to cite just a few crazy examples.

It all seems hopeless.

I haven’t any brilliant notions of how to combat this propagandizing and enlisting half-formed student minds to the cause, but it should start with pressuring our federal agencies to stop producing, promoting on its own fact-free propagandizing, and funding outside groups to do the same. The agencies producing the pap the NEA recommends need to be monitored and forced to provide in its place more objective, documented material for the public. The NEA needs to be challenged regarding the sites and material it is endorsing. If you encourage teachers to teach nonsense, you’re paying them to mis-educate their students.

There is a multi-state effort to create new education standards that are “rich in content and practice, arranged in a coherent manner across disciplines and grades to provide all students an internationally benchmarked science education.” A glance at the standards, arranged by grades, seem far more objective than the NEA site. States that have not signed on to this should be encouraged to do so.

Perhaps all of the climate-change-skeptical sites should consider a feature occasionally explaining the truth of “man-made climate change” in terms children (and their parents) can understand, a sort of Scholastic Science feature now and then.

In the meantime, the climate cult is turning out students like those at Milwaukee’s North Division High School, which holds regular school-sanctioned walkouts on topics like Climate Activism. (Only one student out of 105 there are proficient in English and only two  are proficient in math.) Its most recent teacher-approved Red Guard-like march of the Milwaukee Public Schools was organized by “The People’s Climate Coalition” and specifically targeted Wells Fargo and Chase banks. Apparently they were singled out because they supposedly provided funding for fossil fuel companies. Parents and citizens should challenge the manipulation of students who certainly do not need time away from school to serve as leftist foot soldiers.

We skeptics can’t just talk to ourselves if we mean to bring greater support for rational energy and environmental policies, and we can’t persuade others they are being duped and misinformed if we don’t do more.

Clarice Feldman is a retired attorney living in Washington, D.C. During her legal career she represented the late labor leader Joseph (“Jock”) Yablonski and the reform mine workers against Tony Boyle. She served as an attorney with the Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations, in which role she prosecuted those who aided the Nazis in World War II. She has written for The Weekly Standard and is a regular contributor to American Thinker.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 9, 2020 6:07 pm

9 Jul: C-Fact: So-called “conservative” climate contract paves way for Green New Deal
By Adam Houser
Several conservative politicians including Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the current Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, are regrettably endorsing the “American Climate Contract” – a document that calls for the U.S. to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Members of Congress like McCarthy have stood up for many good measures that support limited government and free market principles in the past, which makes this move surprising.
Here’s what McCarthy said in a statement on the matter:
“Conservative plans for the environment, as this contract does, understand that lasting and effective environmental progress depends on American innovation and exporting that technology around the world — not on enforcing debilitating taxes or punitive mandates.”…

conservative NSW government:

10 Jul: Sydney Morning Herald: New renewable energy zone to almost match NSW’s coal-fired capacity
by Peter Hannam
A new renewable energy zone for the New England region aims to attract 8000 megawatts of generation capacity, nearly the size of the state’s entire fleet of coal-fired power plants.
On Friday, the Berejiklian government will unveil plans for NSW’s second renewable energy zone (REZ), including an investment target almost triple the 3000MW earmarked for its first zone in the Central West…

The government will spend $79 million to assist with the acceleration of new grid connections needed to absorb the expected jump in new wind and solar farms for the region, or about twice the investment for Central-West Orana zone…
Deputy Premier John Barilaro highlighted the zone’s benefits in terms of regional jobs and also lower power prices that would likely follow as capacity is added to the grid.

Anthony M Cooke
Reply to  pat
July 9, 2020 8:22 pm

Here is my comment to this article.
Another delusion – that 8 Gigawatts of solar is equivalent to 8 Gigawatts of Coal fired power. Perhaps you should just look at the first graphic in the following.
If you then read the article, you may realise why we now have almost the highest power prices in the world (maybe a little less than Germany but not much) because of the unreliability of “renewables”. Costs rise with renewables even though the installation cost may not be high but because they are relatively short term i.e. they need replacement more frequently than coal or nuclear power and because they also require installation vast distribution networks which add to the cost of power because of transmission losses. Australia’s power bidding system adds to the cost because dispatchable coal fired power systems need to keep generators running on idle to let them provide power when “renewables” are offline (i.e. when there is no wind or at night).

Because of intermittency of renewables and closure of coal fired power stations, we are rapidly reaching the stage of brownouts and blackouts which we have not widely experienced in Australia since the early 1950s. Unreliable power supply is a major factor in decisions by manufacturing industry to open or more likely close existing facilities, thus leading to greater Australia dependence on foreign manufacturing for our basic supplies.

While our pollies like to think that we should play to our strengths, it may be worthwhile to consider that “man shall not live by moving marks on bits of paper alone but occasionally must live by the sweat of his brow”.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Anthony M Cooke
July 10, 2020 2:58 am

The article is at the SMH by Peter Hannam, a complete, provable, uninformed moron on energy.

Reply to  pat
July 10, 2020 12:35 am

The capacity of wind production in NSW is 1613 MW
Right now 5 pm Friday 10th 2020
Wind production is only 117MW
Grid solar is zero
Roof top solar about 100MW
Black coal 8800MW
In the last month there has been many dark windless days and nights across the whole of southern Australia.
I can safely say that any plan to add wind and solar to the grid with the expectation of getting rid the equivalent coal is a load of BS

Reply to  pat
July 10, 2020 2:48 am

This is a warning to all Republicans: Kevin McCarthy is John Boehner in waiting. There ought to be a House GOP rule that the Speaker MUST come from a state that the prior GOP Presidential nominee WON. Why TF would a representative from California be the speaker of the Republican Party?

Reply to  Luke
July 10, 2020 12:50 pm

At a minimum, the speaker should come from a state that the party has one at least once in the 30 years.

Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2020 6:10 pm

won, not one

Tom Abbott
Reply to  pat
July 10, 2020 6:28 am

“Several conservative politicians including Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the current Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, are regrettably endorsing the “American Climate Contract” – a document that calls for the U.S. to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.”

I think skeptics should actively call out these Republicans who are confused about CO2, including perhaps pulling an “AOC” or two, like occupying their congressional offices until we get answers. That would get their attention.

The question we should put to the Republicans who think CO2 is a problem is: Please explain how you reached the conclusion that CO2 needs to be regulated.

Once they answer this question, then skeptics can tear apart their arguments, preferably, right in front of them, and then let’s see if they change their minds. We all know there is no scientific basis for regulating CO2, and if Republicans want to regulate CO2, we should require them to give us a good reason for why this should be done.

We should not allow Republicans to continue along the road of reducing CO2 emissions without a good reason, and there is no good reason, we just have to drill that into the heads of these credulous Republicans.

Republicans should not accept the premise that CO2 needs to be regulated, in any way, shape or form. That’s the bottom line. The constituents of these Republcians should hold their feet to the fire.

paul courtney
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 10, 2020 9:51 am

Tom: I think we are seeing the worst effect of human CO2 emissions, apparently it weakens the spine of elected republicans. When G. Bush I said “compassionate conservative”, he meant that GOP would stop attacking enviros and work with them. That worked out so great, we got 1st lady Hillary. G.Bush II said we’d produce energy “from all sources”, he meant oil but put $ into “renewable research”. He didn’t learn that greenies gave his dad no credit for trying to meet them in the middle, and same result for G.W. so why does Kevin McCarthy think this will win over greenies? Cannot understand what the thinking is here.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  paul courtney
July 11, 2020 4:57 am

“When G. Bush I said “compassionate conservative”, he meant that GOP would stop attacking enviros and work with them.”

What G.W. Bush really did with that stupid “compassionate conservative” line is smear every other Republican as not being a compassionate conservative. George wanted all the Lefties to know he was different from your average Republican. He had a heart.

I got irritated with Bush the first time he said it, and I’m still irritated about it. He played right into the hand of the Leftist propagandists who claim all Republicans are heartless. Prominent Republicans have a very bad habit of doing such stupid things They are desperate to placate the Left. They don’t want to be treated like the Left treats Trump. Understandable, but cowardly and dishonest.

Endorsing CO2 regulation is another example of prominent Republicans playing right into the hands of the Left.

Reply to  pat
July 10, 2020 8:41 am

Pat I assume that you are in support of renewable energy. I live in the region that was declared the first ‘Renewable Energy Zone’ in NSW. The Central West Region.

Where do you live? Do you or would you be prepared to live next to a thousand hectares of solar panels or wind turbines? That’s not the total area, that is one ‘farm’, and there will be many. We have no say. We have to abide by rules and regulations in regard to building ‘setbacks’, our setbacks are sixty metres from the boundary, or industry among many other such things. Renewables industry do not have these restrictions.

The land is stripped bare, solar panels are built very close to their property boundaries and tall fences are built around them. Thousands of hectares of native wildlife are moved out or alternatively if they managed to find somewhere to hide during the build, they are locked in.

We asked a fire chief how they would deal with a fire at our local solar farm. The panels at this particular solar farm, at less than five kilometres from town, are of the thin film variety, toxic to soil and waterways in the case of a hailstorm. At 87 mw this was the the second largest solar farm in NSW when it was completed, now it’s one of the smaller farms covering a little over 300 hectares. The fire chief told us that they would let it burn, that they cannot easily access the panels, they cannot direct water onto a solar fire and these panels in particular would give off toxic fumes in the event of such a fire. There are an additional 810 hectares in the pipeline to go in next to this solar farm and a smaller one being put forward that would be 600 meters from town. There is also an additional 1,000 hectare plant being proposed for seven kilometers on a different side of town. The fires around here are fierce and they are fast, they could reach our town before the brigade could organise a ‘water bomber’ which was what was suggested as the best method to put out a solar farm fire. Oh and any animals trapped within the fenced solar farm would burn to death.

I suspect you live in the city. When you buy a property it really does come with water, power and sewerage. In the country it doesn’t work that way. Power is ‘available’. We had to pay $30,000 for a transformer and poles. We don’t own the transformer, we just need to have it to connect to the grid. We put in some solar panels, that was before I knew anything about them. Since January we have had four blackouts, we fall into the same grid as the mines who have generators, and our grid is ‘sacrificed’ to prop up the solar farm. None of the power from the solar farm, when it works, is local. It all goes to Sydney. The thing is, when we have a blackout our water pumps (which are electric) obviously don’t work. We cannot flush the toilet, wash our hands, takes a shower or bath, wash the clothes, well you get the message.

To add insult to injury our feed in tariff for solar just went down and our power charges have gone up! So don’t tell me it’s a case of NIMBY for people who live in the country! And please tell me why we shouldn’t be upset that our property values plummet! And yes they are also a blight on an otherwise glorious countryside! On top of all that they are NOT reliable.

This doesn’t even cover the ecological, economic damage and the serious environmental damage. You really need to find out something more about renewables technology, it is not clean, green, or in any way free. You can get alot of information here at WUWT. Michael Shellenburger’s book Apocalypse Never, is an excellent way to get some important facts too. This book is really on topic right now, a must read.

Just thought I’d add, there is no recycling currently in place for wind and solar. To do it properly is horrendously expensive and needs fossil fuels to achieve the necessary high temperatures. It’s cheaper to use raw materials. Some of the materials cannot be recycled at all and almost all of it is going to landfill.

Clay Sanborn
Reply to  Megs
July 10, 2020 10:11 am

Megs, apropos to your last paragraph: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
Those are cut up old wind turbine blades being covered by a Diesel bulldozer.

Dave Marney
July 9, 2020 6:11 pm

I read his new book, it was very interesting and informative. Chapter 10, especially, was an eye-opener. In it, he explains as only an insider can how the Green movement is actually heavily funded by fossil fuel interests. Their aim is to close down nuclear power generation, not because it is unsafe, but because it is too competitive. Every nuclear plant that has been shut down has been replaced with a fossil fuel-based plant. That is no accident.

However, it’d be missing the forest for the trees to say that his book is primarily about pushing back against climate alarmism. His big thesis is the idea of a turn towards what he calls “Environmental Humanism” — environmentalism that exists out of love for man and for nature — and away from the deadly secular religion (his words) that has overtaken environmentalism over the past half century.

A very good read.

July 9, 2020 6:16 pm

In spite of Shellenburger being ignored by the media, his book is doing OK on the Amazon rankings. We’ll see how it holds up over time.

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #92 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

#1 in Climatology
#1 in Environmental Policy
#1 in Environmental Science (Books)

The mainstream media does not matter nearly as much as it once did.

Reply to  commieBob
July 10, 2020 3:58 am

Here is a synopsis of an extended extract approved by Shellenberger from his book, including a link to the full text.

Reply to  commieBob
July 11, 2020 10:17 am

Perhaps, but alot of the younger generation hardly even reads books anymore. Prb’ly couldn’t comprehend or care about a book like Shellenburger’s anyway. Just look at farcebook or twitter/twatter for your info.

July 9, 2020 6:17 pm

Oh those dirty rotten climate deniers and their dirty money from the Koch Brothers and the Mercer family! They are making it hard for climate scientists to save the planet from the horrors of man made climate change.


Reply to  Chaamjamal
July 10, 2020 12:53 pm

It is evil and a corruption democracy for billionaires to contribute to Republicans.
On the other hand our billionaires are purer than driven snow, as is their money.

July 9, 2020 6:21 pm

It’s not a crusade, it’s been an adventure in social justice, em-pathetic appeals, and cancel culture.

Ian Coleman
July 9, 2020 6:32 pm

To be fair, I first came to WUWT by way of a Google search, and WUWT was the first listing in the search. But sure, Google searches obviously favour some political viewpoints over others. A common phenomenon is that, when you enter a search sentence that someone on the left of the political spectrum might question, you get a list of search results that are the obverse of the sentence you typed. (For example, type in “Young people are rarely harmed by COVID-19” and you get a string of sites promoting the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to the young than many people believe.)

Incidentally, wouldn’t it be something if Greta Thunberg took it into her young, autistic head to defect to climate change skepticism? That could happen. She’s autistic, and doesn’t really care about making and keeping friends, and she is prone to obsessive ideation.

paul courtney
Reply to  Ian Coleman
July 10, 2020 10:45 am

Ian says “wouldn’t it be something if Greta Thunberg …..” Yes, that would be something, but we would never ever hear of it or see it in print. Her folks would have her committed for that crazy talk (!) and the press would find another climate teen. She’s fast approaching a sell-by date as it is.

July 9, 2020 6:37 pm

The only human being that still believes in man-made climate change is Greta. And really, I’m not even sure about her. I think she believes in being a media darling and a guest of famous people and having an opportunity to play at adulting on TV.

Reply to  D3F1ANT
July 10, 2020 12:54 pm

“I’m not even sure about her”

That she believes, or that she’s human?

July 9, 2020 6:45 pm

I strongly recommend keeping the issue as unconnected with any other as is possible. Concentrate on showing that the Warmist story is bad science, and leave out political rants. People are more likely to be persuaded if their other beliefs and attitudes are not being vilified.

Reply to  RoHa
July 9, 2020 7:43 pm

Note to Self…Take RoHo’s advice. The fake news and even this wonderful website can get me purdy worked up. Probably give me another heart attack unless I can keep calm and make rational and sensible arguments. Plus as you say, maybe we get more people listening to intelligent arguments and debate.

Reply to  Earthling2
July 9, 2020 7:45 pm

See, I so worked up, I can’t even spell RoHa.

old engineer
Reply to  RoHa
July 9, 2020 9:57 pm


Strongly agree. One of my first comments here at WUWT almost 10 years ago, was “Don’t let your science be decided by your politics.” But that was before belief in CAGW became a litmus test for being a liberal.

Reply to  RoHa
July 10, 2020 6:23 am

The CO2-control-knob is absurd science, but science doesn’t matter. Most of us want to believe someone is in control, and can make others pay a disproportionate share for it.

Reply to  RoHa
July 10, 2020 12:56 pm

The other side has demonstrated that they don’t care about the science. It doesn’t matter how many times you disprove the science, they will still back the global warming scam because it benefits them politically.

July 9, 2020 7:14 pm

I am always bemused how climate activists create an alternative reality. The heavy snow and freezing conditions are due to globalwarming. 97% of scientists agree!

Smart Rock
July 9, 2020 7:20 pm

Why don’t we (the “deniers”) start harassing the online expressions of alarmism by demanding they be deplatformed because they are upsetting our sensibilities and making us feel racialized (whatever that is supposed to mean) or “triggered” or something.

Forgive my ignorance. I don’t have any experience of social media, they always seemed to be somehow frivolous and those that hang out there seemed a bit narcissistic. They do however have a lot of clout in shaping public opinion.

Someone who knows how to do it and the words to use, take this idea and organize a systematic campaign. Please. Use their weapons against them. Start with Mann and Hayhoe. They are the worst.

M__ S__
July 9, 2020 7:26 pm

When I linked the Shellenberger article on Facebook, the post was stamped “partly false” by the FB censors

And I only released the post to the 90 or so friends I link with there—not the world.


Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  M__ S__
July 9, 2020 7:50 pm

Now it would have been fairer to say’Mostly True’.

Reply to  M__ S__
July 10, 2020 2:44 am

Section 230 needs to be repealed.

Reply to  M__ S__
July 10, 2020 6:18 am

On what basis was it declared “partly false”? How is it that the censors don’t need to explain “what parts” are false? Slapping a label devoid of specific justification is unacceptable and meaningless. Brainwashing.

Reply to  Kenji
July 10, 2020 12:58 pm

Which is why limiting the debate to just the science will never work.
The other side doesn’t care about the science and would never look at any evidence you present.

Robert of Texas
July 9, 2020 7:47 pm

The problem with platforms like Google is they have become monopolies – in this case ones that control people’s ability to learn about more than a single side of a debate. The fact that a private company is able to essentially decide what people can and cannot see is a serious threat to democracy. This alone means the Federal Government should act immediately to break up the monopoly. The same argument holds for Facebook, Twitter, and possibly other huge communication platforms.

People go to Google because it has the single best source of organized information. Once it has become tainted with politics it is nothing more than a platform whereby propaganda can be spread and information hidden. Facebook is the single most important social site. Twitter is the single most important message exchange. All of these need to be connected, but they need to be broken up into smaller companies and new rules applied to the censorship of information – there has to be due process and a mechanism to restore that which is unlawfully taken away (or censored in this case). As long as these sites are helping a the largest political base in the United States, this will never happen…unless the Justice department takes action.

If Google were to made an example of, many social media companies would be “encouraged” to take action on their own before they too are targeted for a breakup. If we can break apart AT&T, then we can break apart a company like Google.

July 9, 2020 7:48 pm

Dyslexics of the world untie!!!
Sorry just had to put a bad pun in here today.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  TRM
July 9, 2020 9:19 pm

Trick or trout!

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 10, 2020 7:35 am

If the schu berts, play it!

Joel O'Bryan
July 9, 2020 8:02 pm

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”
– George Orwell

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 9, 2020 8:28 pm

How do we 1984-proof our future?
We vote at every opportunity against socialism and its candidates and anything that even remotely looks like socialism. We tell our family and friends why socialism is a trap, and that the climate change alarmism is their Trojan Horse to power.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 10, 2020 6:06 am

“How do we 1984-proof our future?”

The first thing that should be done is to demote the Leftwing Media from being the societal “Voice of Authority”. They should be seen for what they are: partisan, political propagandists and their credibility should be questioned at every turn.

Trump is making a pretty good dent in the credibility of the Leftwing Media, but still, too many people turn to them for the truth, and the truth is not in the Leftwing Media. They won’t find the truth there.

The Left now controls all the Institutions of US culture. That is the problem. They control all the brainwashing machinery, the schools and the Media, and they have this propaganda machine running at full speed now. This needs to stop.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 9, 2020 8:25 pm

ThinkProgress is as ridiculous and anti-intellectual as one can get. ThinkProgress authors, like all the woke idiots, work purely on emotion and feeling.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 9, 2020 8:55 pm

“ThinkProgress is as ridiculous and anti-intellectual as one can get”

And those that actually “believe” it, are among the most anti-science, deluded and gullible people around.

Aren’t you, Jack !

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 9, 2020 9:35 pm

Shellenberger has not defected.

Can you elaborate, Jack? This article is 11 years old. So old in fact, some of the internal links backing up its claims are broken.

Jack Dale
Reply to  sycomputing
July 10, 2020 6:12 am

There is really nothing new in Shellenberger’s thinking. He was never really that “green”.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2020 7:12 am

He was a full-time environmental activist for many years. Once an anti-nuclear power and pro solar power campaigner.

How do you define “green”. Is there an official index we can measure ourselves against?

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
July 10, 2020 1:01 pm

The next step will be removing Shellenberger’s image from old pictures.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2020 9:21 am

He was never really that “green”.

If you say so. All that article you referenced does is criticize him and Nordhaus for criticizing Gore. About the only reference to his “greenness” is this ad hominem:

“And everybody understands S&N don’t get global warming at all ever since Nordhaus made his amazing admission on this blog, ‘We have argued for five years now that efforts to build the clean energy economy needed to be centrally defined around energy independence not global warming.'”

Joe Romm’s sloppy thinking isn’t a good place to start in making your case is it?

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2020 1:00 pm

Once again, Jack doesn’t even try to defend his point. He just throws out yet more ad hominems.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2020 2:17 am

Jack tell us how we are all going to die in 10 years.

Maybe Simon, Lyodo or Ghalfrunt can come along and help you. My apologies on spelling.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Derg
July 10, 2020 6:06 am

Big strawman. What climate scientist said we will all die in 10 years?

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2020 6:29 am

What climate scientist has said we are passing a “tipping point” … repeated tipping points, in actuality … past which there will be NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL of the planet or humans? Answer: All of them. So, no … maybe not 10 years … but certain DEATH is guaranteed by every single climate scientist bent on the complete elimination of fossil fuels. Certain. Death.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2020 8:10 am

Better question: What climate scientist has made an accurate, scientific prediction

July 9, 2020 8:25 pm

So far the “deniers of the world” have done nothing significant to counter the AGW hysteria and IMHO, despite the increase in MSM coverage, people aren’t that interested in Global Warming and are even starting to question the whole premise. You can tell a lie for only so long. There’s an old saying in fist fights…. “just because you’re grinning it don’t mean you’re winning”.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  markl
July 10, 2020 6:14 am

“There’s an old saying in fist fights…. “just because you’re grinning it don’t mean you’re winning”

Yes, when you watch a boxing match, every now and then, you’ll see a fighter grin real big after he takes a heavy punch from his opponent. That usually means the punch hurt a lot, and the guy is grinning so as not to give that impression to his opponent. But if they grin, the punch probably hurt them, and their opponent will know it anyway, having been there themselves. It’s an automatic reaction.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 10, 2020 7:43 am

Except when Tyson (Fury) does it.
He grins when he is happy,
which is pretty much all the time.

Reply to  Photios
July 10, 2020 1:02 pm

Regarding Tyson, it could just mean that he is hungry.

Chris Hanley
July 9, 2020 8:52 pm

‘‘Deniers’ of the World, Unite!’.
But what unites ‘deniers’ and what are they denying?
Some posters here are firmly convinced that there is no ‘greenhouse’ effect.
Some think that there is a GH effect and that CO2 is a GH gas and therefore in theory could have an effect.
Some think that the increasing CO2 concentration is having a measurable effect but that model projections exaggerate that effect which on balance will be beneficial anyway.
Some think that the increasing CO2 concentration is having an effect that if it continues will be harmful but that existing policy prescriptions will do more harm.
No doubt there are other positions out there, it’s probably more productive to concentrate on what unites climate realists viz. the draconian energy and associated social change prescriptions.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 9, 2020 9:23 pm

… opposition to the draconian energy and associated social change prescriptions.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 10, 2020 2:23 am

“But what unites ‘deniers’ and what are they denying?
Some posters here are firmly convinced that there is no ‘greenhouse’ effect.”
Certainly 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter, has greenhouse effect…
“Some think that there is a GH effect and that CO2 is a GH gas and therefore in theory could have an effect.”
If greenhouse effect = trace greenhouse gases, that is different topic.
Do all greenhouse gases cause 33 K of warming. No.
Do greenhouse gases cause some warming, probably.
But think I could freeze entire planet, and and doesn’t matter how much greenhouse gases are in atmosphere, because it seems ocean surface ocean controls controls global air temperature. So mix warm surface water with colder water below it, and world freezes. That would not prove there is not warming from greenhouse gases. Rather it indicate what controls things.
So ocean surface temperature control global air temperature, how is ocean surface warmed. Well it can’t warmed by CO2. A very thin layer of water blocks all long wave IR. And not even warmed much sunlight- sunlight is mostly heating water below the skin surface of water, and cooled and denser surface water falls and warmer water less dense water rises to surface.
So no greenhouse gases are needed to warm the water.
If you have 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter, the more dense air near surface will warmer than the ever decreasing density above it- water vapor effects lapse rate, but with no greenhouse gases in atmosphere, you have lapse rate. So you have greenhouse effect merely due to denser air is warmer. In terms warming world, the tropics gets more sunlight warming the surface, the tropical ocean is heat engine of world- heat air which warms polar region, and transports warmer ocean to polar regions. A planet earth distance from Sun with 10 tons of atmosphere per square meter, will have warm tropical ocean and will have water vapor. Or if have planet 70% covered with water has to have water vapor- the dry Mars planet has 210 ppm of water vapor- dump bunch of snow on Mars equator and it will have even more water vapor. Important aspect of Earth temperature is related to Earth having an ocean. Start the ocean as frozen it still have water vapor at the tropics.
–Some think that the increasing CO2 concentration is having a measurable effect but that model projections exaggerate that effect which on balance will be beneficial anyway.–
We live in an Ice Age- what wrong it with getting warmer.
We in live Ice Age because “90% of the volume of ocean is 3 C or colder”
Or average temperature is about 3.5 C.
Cold ocean and thin layer water at surface which warmer- and has average global temperature of about 17 C. Tropics is about 26 C and 60% of rest global ocean surface temperature is about 11 C.
And average land surface is about 10 C, giving global average surface air temperature of 15 C. 15 C is quite cold, but since tropics being 40% of surface being much warmer than 15 C, the 60% of rest surface air is much cooler than 15 C. US is 9 C, so is China and Europe. Canada and Russia is about -4 C. And high latitude of Europe would much colder than 9 C, if not for tropical ocean with the gulf stream warming it. Or turn off gulf stream and Europe is quite cold. Or all land would be much cooler without ocean warming it- or Europe gets significantly more warming from Ocean.
But if Earth lacked ocean, it would still warmer than an average of -18 C.
Because 10 tons per square meter of atmosphere, it’s tilt, and it’s rotation.
Though poles would quite cold and probably freeze out CO2 in the atmosphere.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  gbaikie
July 10, 2020 7:40 am

If you want to convince me there’s a greenhouse gas effect, you need to formulate your idea as a testable scientific hypothesis. Tests must not exclude good tests proposed by AGW-skeptics. Because the greenhouse gas effect is, essentially, an idea in atmospheric physics, the tests should be hard science tests. That is: repeatable tests against the real world yielding precise numbers. We have over 3 decades of climate alarmism based on metaphor, parable and bad stories. So do we think climate alarmists can formulate a scientific hypothesis? My bet is: no they can’t.

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
July 10, 2020 9:56 am

–If you want to convince me there’s a greenhouse gas effect, you need to formulate your idea as a testable scientific hypothesis. —

Evaporating water, warms the world. Ocean surface temperature is same ocean surface air temperature due to water being gas and transfering from surface to atmosphere. And water vapor effect lapse. And etc. But you mean radiant effect of greenhouse gas, there idea that radiant energy absorbed can add to average velocity of air molecules. And gas temperature is it’s kinetic energy {or average velocity}. I don’t think there any warming effect from “back radiation” and most scientists supporting GHE theory, don’t believe their is warming effect from back radiation.
And another aspect is a warm air that absorbs radiant heat acts as insulation- could be some effect from this.
I would agree that radiant effects of greenhouse gases are not proven {or can be measured- instead it’s guessed.
But water vapor is significant element of global average temperature, due latent heat of water and water evaporating and condensing in the atmosphere.
I would water as the ocean is a greater global warming effect.

Reply to  gbaikie
July 10, 2020 12:09 pm

Btw, listening to Scott Adams interview, Michael Shellenberger:

I don’t have any disagreement with Michael in regards to what saying in interview. Except I think both nuclear and solar energy will be major element related to using space environment.
{it’s in first 20 mins of clip.}

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
July 10, 2020 1:04 pm

It works in the lab.
Unless their is different physics in laboratories vs the wild, it will work in the wild.

Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2020 2:34 pm

No lab can make sunlight.
Earth is complicated.
Why does Earth have an ocean with an average temperature of about 3.5 C. When Earth has had in past [very distant past} an ocean with average temperature of 15 C
“The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth. Not only does water cover more than 70 percent of our planet’s surface, it can also absorb large amounts of heat without a large increase in temperature. This tremendous ability to store and release heat over long periods of time gives the ocean a central role in stabilizing Earth’s climate system.”
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean”

This related to famous saying “the heat was lost in the ocean”.
If 90 percent of global warming is heating a 3.5 C ocean, can explain how this occurs?
{I take such statements as admission that global warming causes 1/10th as much as we once thought it could.}

And for bonus points, why is Earth’s average temperature 15 C and the ocean has average temperature of 3.5 C.

Do you agree that due to having ocean colder than 5 C is the only reason we are in an Ice Age.
Also called icehouse or icebox climate.
Were you aware that greenhouse climate has a warm ocean?
{It’s also called hothouse, which another word that Brits use for greenhouse].
Labs measure a warming effect from CO2.
But it’s strange that CO2 is not used to warm anything- and CO2 up to 40,000 ppm is not dangerous- people exhale about 40,000 ppm of CO2. Though I suppose a breathing human could be regarded a quite dangerous. Or if say 800 ppm caused increase of 1 C, and 1600 ppm caused 2 C. A 2 C increase in temperature could be useful and at that level it is harmless.

Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2020 6:15 pm

No lab needs to make sunlight.

That the world is complicated is not proof that the physics are different.

All that is needed is for the lab to produce IR and the CO2 to absorb it.

That the earth is complicated just proves that we can’t predict how much of an impact the energy trapped by CO2 will change the climate. It doesn’t prove that CO2 can’t capture energy.

Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2020 8:58 pm

“That the earth is complicated just proves that we can’t predict how much of an impact the energy trapped by CO2 will change the climate. It doesn’t prove that CO2 can’t capture energy.”
CO2 is considered to be a weak greenhouse gas.
All gases tend to be transparent to radiant energy, and all gases will absorb some parts of spectrum of radiant energy, CO2 is considered by some to absorb important parts of spectrum of longwave IR as it relates to Earth atmosphere.
But in terms of other states of matter, such liquid and solids they tend not be transparent to radiant energy. Water or glass can be transparent to all visible light but aren’t to Longwave IR. Clouds {droplets of water] absorbed far more the longwave IR spectrum as compared to CO2 gas.
But my point is what is more important of Earth global temperature is not the atmosphere, but rather it’s oceans.
What warms Europe is not CO2, but rather it’s most the gulf stream.
And warms Earth’s entire atmosphere is the tropical ocean.
So if want to control Earth atmosphere temperature, you could do it controlling the ocean temperature. Or the tropical ocean is the world heat engine. And one can turn off this engine.
Or if Europe wants to be cooler, then turn off the Gulf Stream.
But I would say would no sane wants Earth to be cooler- particularly Europe.
But if we were not in one of the coldest Ice Ages that Earth has been in, then maybe some people might want it cooler.

And the money wasted on pretending we are reducing CO2 emissions {when we not actually doing this- because just a scam} is such enormous amount wealth, that a fraction of money wasted could be used that could definitely cause Earth to cool by any amount desired {but said, problem is no one wants Earth to be cooler}.
Warming Earth would be more expensive, but probably about same dollars already wasted by the zeal of global warming religion {or maybe a bit less}.

Joz Jonlin
July 9, 2020 9:04 pm

The answer to the Google problem is a large group of private organizations overseeing internet search in an open and transparent manner to provide for accountability to each other and the public. Google will fight this. The other answer is to stop using Google for search. Google has abandoned it’s old mantra of not being evil. Now they’re actively sliding over to the evil lane hoping no one else will notice.

Reply to  Joz Jonlin
July 10, 2020 2:02 am

I never use Google, just DuckDuckGo, and don’t get peppered with silly advertisments.

July 9, 2020 9:10 pm

“… consider a feature occasionally explaining the truth of “man-made climate change” in terms children (and their parents) can understand, …”

I don’t know about other people’s grandchildren, but our older grandchildren love reading comics, and the younger ones love watching cartoons.

Paul Johnson
July 9, 2020 9:51 pm

We see an increasing number of former climate alarmists disavowing their zealotry and embracing reality. Except for the occasional politician (who had no real understanding anyway), we see few “deniers” abandoning rational thought in favor of alarmist magical thinking. It appears that enlightenment, once achieved, is difficult to eradicate. This is a hopeful trend.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Paul Johnson
July 9, 2020 10:43 pm

Enlightenment is the key reason the cancel culture of the Left exists. The Left’s entire framework is built lies and half-truths. Such a framework cannot withstand the light of truth, thus the Left must cancel truth sayers.

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 10, 2020 7:31 am

The Left, and Western intelligentsia, gave up on the Enlightenment about 250 years ago when they embraced anti-Enlightenment thinkers Kant and Rousseau. Prior to that, for the first 150 years, the ‘Age of Reason’ did well. In fact, Enlightenment writers nearly all used the same main method: skepticism founded on empiricism. Which is, basically, the same method that birthed the Scientific Revolution. The same method most WUWT readers commit ourselves too.

See: The Enlightenment, and Why it Still Matters, Anthony Pagden

July 9, 2020 10:41 pm

These four letters are a series sent to our educators and our Alberta government that puts them on notice that their promotion of the false climate scare is stressing and harming our children. They cannot claim they were not properly advised of their malfeasance – it is now a matter of public record, widely shared with the media. Our educators and our government members will be held responsible for their ignorant, irresponsible scare-mongering.

“This letter further serves to put you, the Alberta Teachers Association and its members on notice that promotion of the climate scare is false propaganda that is causing harm to our children.”

From: Allan MacRae
Sent: July-01-20 7:59 AM
Subject: RE: The Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) and the False Crisis of Global Warming Alarmism

Subject: The Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) and the False Crisis of Global Warming Alarmism – Part 4

Jason C Schilling
President, Alberta Teachers Association

Cc: Hon. Adriana LaGrange
Minister of Education

Cc: Hon. Sonya Savage
Minister of Energy

Cc: Hon. Jason Kenney
Premier of Alberta

Cc: Media and Politicians in Canada and the USA

Hello Mr. Schilling,

A wake-up call for media, governments and educators – Michael Schellenberger’s Green “Apology”.


On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare
Michael Shellenberger, June 28, 2020
Here is the “disappeared” Forbes article, via the Wayback Machine:

“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.” – former radical green Michael Shellenberger


I knew that catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW) was a false hypothesis circa 1985, and we published that conclusion in 2002 (below).

Soon thereafter it became clear that CAGW was a deliberate scientific and political fraud.

I strongly oppose CAGW alarmism and green energy fraud because it is irrational, immoral and destructive to humanity AND the environment.

We wrote this in 2002 and have been proven correct to date:

Published by APEGA in the PEGG, reprinted by other professional journals, The Globe and Mail and La Presse.
by Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and Allan MacRae, November 2002

On global warming:

“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

On green energy:

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

Michael Schellenberger, your apology is NOT accepted. Here, in part, is why:

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., April 14, 2019

“In the 20th Century, socialists Stalin, Hitler and Mao caused the deaths of over 200 million people, mostly their own citizens. Lesser killers like Pol Pot and the many tin-pot dictators of South America and Africa killed and destroyed the lives of many more.”

“Modern Green Death probably started with the 1972-2002 effective ban of DDT, which caused global deaths from malaria to increase from about 1 million to almost two million per year. Most of these deaths were children under five in sub-Saharan Africa – just babies for Christ’s sake!”

“…radical greens (really radical leftists) are the great killers of our time. Now the greens are blinding and killing babies by opposing golden rice…”

2. My hypothesis is that “Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.

Here is some of the supporting evidence:

The banning of DDT from ~1972 to 2002, which caused the malaria deaths of tens of millions of children under five years of age, and sickened and killed many more adults and children;

The fierce green opposition to golden rice, actions that blinded and killed millions of children;

The misallocation of scarce global resources for destructive intermittent “green energy” schemes, which are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy;

Properly allocated, a fraction of the trillions of dollars squandered on green energy schemes could have installed clean drinking water and sanitation systems into every community on the planet, saving the lives of many tens of millions of children and adults; the remaining funds could have significantly reduced deaths from malaria and malnutrition;

The number of Excess Winter Deaths and shattered lives caused by runaway energy costs in the developed world and lack of access to modern energy in the developing world probably exceeds the tens of millions of malaria deaths caused by the DDT ban; Excess Winter Deaths (more deaths in winter than non-winter months) total about two million souls per year, which demonstrates that Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity;

Indoor air pollution from cooking fires contributes to illness and premature death in the developing world, especially among women and children;

In addition to runaway energy costs and increased winter deaths, intermittent wind and solar power schemes have reduced grid reliability and increased the risk of power outages;

Huge areas of agricultural land have been diverted from growing food to biofuels production, driving up food costs and causing hunger among the world’s poorest people.

3. There is NO credible scientific evidence that climate is highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, and ample evidence to the contrary. Catastrophic humanmade global warming is a false crisis.

Yours truly, Allan MacRae
B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng.

From: Allan MacRae
Sent: May-31-20 4:40 AM
Subject: RE: The Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) and the False Crisis of Global Warming Alarmism

Jason C Schilling
President, Alberta Teachers Association

Cc: Hon. Adriana LaGrange
Minister of Education

Cc: Hon. Jason Kenney
Premier of Alberta

Subject: The Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) and the False Crisis of Global Warming Alarmism – Part 3

Hello Mr. Schilling,

The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence. All the very-scary global warming and climate change predictions made by the climate alarmists, totaling ~50 or more to date, have failed to materialize. Virtually every scary prediction made by global warming alarmists turned out to be false. Nobody should believe them – about anything.

The global warming / climate change alarmists have relied upon the stupidity and gullibility of the average person to sell their falsehoods, and so far it has worked to their advantage. It is truly regrettable that so many members of the ATA fall into that category – they fail to understand the Scientific Method, and seem to believe that science is about consensus – it is not , and it never was – science is about credible evidence!

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020
“There are numerous highly credible observations that falsify the CAGW hypothesis and many are listed herein, but as Albert Einstein famously stated “One would be enough”.“

This letter further serves to put you, the ATA and its members on notice that promotion of the climate scare is false propaganda that is causing harm to our children.

Yours truly, Allan MacRae
B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng.

From: Allan MacRae
Sent: February-03-20 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: The Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) and the False Crisis of Global Warming Alarmism

Jason C Schilling
President, Alberta Teachers Association

Cc: Hon. Adriana LaGrange
Minister of Education

Subject: The Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) and the False Crisis of Global Warming Alarmism – Part 2


From: Allan MacRae
Sent: December-23-19 9:16 PM
To: President, Alberta Teachers Association
Cc: Minister of Education, Alberta
Subject: The Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) and the False Crisis of Global Warming Alarmism
Jason C Schilling
President, Alberta Teachers Association
Cc: Hon. Adriana LaGrange
Minister of Education
Subject: The Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) and the False Crisis of Global Warming Alarmism

July 10, 2020 12:02 am


The solution is there, the GHE theory has been debunked and “climate change” with it. But guess what? No one is willing to take notice. Emails on new exiting scientific break throughs are getting ignored, discussion boards (as far as they should even exist) are being trolled, and certainly everyone makes sure there is no discussion on science allowed. All we are supposed to do is reading the same old non sense from the same old folks. I am sick of this shit!

We can not unite under the umbrella of bigotry. Let the smart people, geniuses lead like me lead, and this may get somewhere. Open up the discussion, and this may get somewhere. Or keep doing the same old things and expect different outcomes, to satisfy Einstein’s definition of insanity.

There are smarter people doing smarter science, and this is just a taste of it..


Chris Hanley
Reply to  Leitwolf
July 10, 2020 12:27 am

Hey Leitwolf, you wouldn’t be Zoe in disguise — a sheep in wolf’s clothing?

Reply to  Leitwolf
July 10, 2020 3:17 am

Lukewarmers don’t help either.

Reply to  leitmotif
July 10, 2020 1:08 pm

Everyone who disagrees with you is evil?
How long have you been a marxist?

Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2020 2:04 pm

MarkW, my little lukewarm stalker is back.

Get a life pal. Preferably over at DeSmog where you belong, raving on about plant food.

Reply to  leitmotif
July 10, 2020 6:16 pm

Once again, leitmotif proves that he/she/it simply isn’t capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation.
You post here. I respond to said post. That makes me a stalker? Really?

Why don’t you for once actually try to create a cogent argument and present it.

If the best you can do is to continue to sling insults, then you really shouldn’t wonder why everyone is laughing at you behind your back.

Reply to  Leitwolf
July 10, 2020 9:39 am

Let the smart people, geniuses lead like me lead, and this may get somewhere.

No disrespect intended, but it seems to me that geniuses like you don’t need to be allowed to lead, they take the lead by virtue of their genuine geniusness.

By your own admission all the Smart’s in your corner, so use it.

Reply to  sycomputing
July 10, 2020 1:09 pm

It really amazes me how often people who declare that we need to follow them because they are geniuses, can’t even demonstrate that they understand even basic physics.

Reply to  sycomputing
July 10, 2020 1:10 pm

That and having to resort to ad hominems whenever they are challenged.

Reply to  Leitwolf
July 10, 2020 1:07 pm

It has been debunked?

Stephen Skinner
July 10, 2020 12:19 am

From Google’s code of conduct:
“And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!”

And get sacked.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
July 10, 2020 8:08 am

Right and wrong are very subjective things.

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
July 10, 2020 1:12 pm

There is a movement to fire one of the writers at Vox for the crime of signing a letter claiming that the Cancel Movement has gone too far.
The writer has been a reliable leftists for years, but he’s got to go because he disagrees today.
One worker who self identifies as a transgender woman proclaimed that she no longer feels safe at work, knowing that the person disagrees with her.

July 10, 2020 12:22 am

One smidgen of hope in the UK? After a ridiculous “AGW is happening now, these carefully selected farmers say so” piece on the BBC Countryfile programme, the presenter ended with the magic words “its going to happen, so we must prepare for it”. I can imagine the panic of the Green Blob, whose enormous income relies on crazy notions of stopping it.

Nick Graves
July 10, 2020 12:36 am

Calm, rational articles get censored.

Therefore, the dirty tricks dept. needs to get involved.

My half-baked idea would be some sort of class-action lawsuit (find an ambulance-chasing firm of some size) and appeal to those who like the idea of compensation for their kids being psychologically damaged by the propaganda.

Google ought to be a high-profile-enough defendant, with enough access to bucks to suffer.

Diseaselgate and VAG is the basis for my ‘model’. Make it so big, that the press find it hard to cancel.

Carl Friis-Hansen
July 10, 2020 12:36 am

Extending the headline from:

‘Deniers’ of the World, Unite!

with a segment like this:
Objective Doctors of the World, Unite and Shout!

Late yesterday I received, from a friend, an email with the following link to a video interview titled “Plandemic Documentary – The Hidden Agenda Behind Covid-19”:

It has been a cat and mouse game to keep this interview living publicly in the MSC (Main Stream Clouds). Therefore, if you feel it is worth it, I advice you to download the video, save it on your hard drive and eventually upload it to a public MSC.

The Interview is specifically about COVID-19, but it is also about uniting in the freedom-fight against MSM and MSC, which are turning more and more into a Pravda style entity, and turning our nations into “a suppressed state” similar to the former European East Block.

It is important that in particular VIPs and officials think objectively, unite and shout!.

July 10, 2020 12:39 am

I am deciding whether I shall remain calling myself a climate sceptic.
Other options are climate realist or just going all out and calling myself a denier to stir things up.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Waza
July 10, 2020 1:46 am

What about Climate Lover, member of Climate Freedom Association in the fight to free the climate and the people from Climate Repression.

Reply to  Waza
July 10, 2020 11:27 am

if imagine your “approach”to “climate science” is related to science issues
I go with climate sceptic.
If your “approach”to “climate science” is political, climate realist seems fairly good weaselly political label.
I call myself a lukewarmer {and lots people don’t like it- cause they value commitment or something??}.
But lukewarmer is yeah it’s warming and could warm more in future, and so what?
Or as I specifically say: We are and have been living in an Ice Age for millions of years.
And you were taught this in elementary school.
And btw, there nothing warm about 15 C temperature.

July 10, 2020 1:39 am

IIRC, the BBC’s pension fund went nap on renewables, and the prospective huge dip in value caused the BBC management to wage a propaganda war on the objective science.

Could anybody shed light on the connection beweeen company pension funds and company policy generally? Could this be Adam Smith’s ‘hidden hand’ in action?

Jan Smelik
July 10, 2020 4:28 am

In The Netherlands there is this website http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https://www.klimaatfeiten.nl/index which explanes in laymans terms all about climate issues. I am not shure about the translation in English but it should be quit understandable.

Just Jenn
July 10, 2020 5:13 am

If you want to play dirty pool it’s actually very simple: Go after the money. The REAL money.

Dive into the depths of financial auditing and audit Mann and the other “kings” of the climate scare. See how much money they get for perpetuating. Don’t get into the politics of it and the non-science. Attack it with real numbers–$$.

All it takes in this culture is to show the egregious gorging of funds and BAM! cancelled. Easy to say, much harder and costly to do.

Jeff Id
July 10, 2020 5:52 am

“I haven’t any brilliant notions of how to combat this propagandizing and enlisting half-formed student minds to the cause, but it should start with pressuring our federal agencies to stop producing, promoting on its own fact-free propagandizing, and funding outside groups to do the same. ”

Well you could start a giant climate blog with real science and make sooo much internet noise that you cannot be ignored. What to call it now …. hmm. 😀

Tom Gelsthorpe
July 10, 2020 5:52 am

Clarice: We know each other from FB. I’m thrilled to see you write for WUWT, where I’ve been a reader and frequent commenter for many years.

Keep up the good work defusing pretense, hypocrisy and sham, and debunking “the silliness of the doomsday movement.”

Thanks for all you do.

Mark Pawelek
July 10, 2020 7:02 am

Man-made climate change is essentially a scam to promote renewable energy. Go back in time to remember the biggest selling environmentalist book prior to Silent Spring, called Road to Survival, by William Vogt, published in 1948. Vogt declared renewable energy the way forward for humanity. Back then the preference for renewables over fossil fuel had nothing to do with climate, or pollution. It was calculated purely on neo-Malthusian concerns: we will run out of fossil fuel one day. (PS: Nuclear power did not exist back then). Vogt’s book influenced the 1960s environmentalist boom.

Major pollution concerns over fossil fuel began in 1950s. In 1970s climate scientists blamed global cooling on fossil fuels too. Particulates, from fossil fuel incineration, were said to reflect sunlight away from earth to cause global cooling, ushering in a new Ice Age. Yet. in the late 1970s and early 1980s the climate began to warm (due to fewer low-lying clouds globally). The anti-fossil fuel argument changed from climate cooling to warming. Chris Essex documents how, in his first modelling job, he was told to blame carbon dioxide emissions for global warming. The greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, – believed in by so many (including posters here) – has no proper scientific definition. It has no testable scientific hypothesis. It does not belong to science. In its modern form, the idea is over 53 years old (Dating to Manabe and Wetherald’s 1967 paper). It were real science it would’ve been formulated as a testable hypothesis within months. Yet 53 years on – there’s still no scientific formulation. During the Obama administration, climate research spending increased many times over. Nearly all of it spent on research assuming a greenhouse gas effect. Yet this the idea remains without proper scientific formulation, never mind validation. Much of the world plans to spend trillions of dollars based on this cargo cult science. Support for the greenhouse gas effect is pathological. It harms rich, poor and the environment. The pathology is mainly driven by politicians who have bullied, cajoled and seduced by hard greens. Together, they’ve bound scientists to the idea by making support for a GHGE a condition for a career in science. GHGE may be supported my most of the hard-left but it is, essentially, the neo-Malthusian idea. It will never have mass popular support. That’s why no politician will ever get power by campaigning on climate. Tim Bull (bless him) is wrong. There’s no conspiracy of leftists using it to promote world government; there’s an shower of incompetents and cowards bullied into supporting Malthusian ideas.

Pat Frank
July 10, 2020 7:48 am

Clarice Feldman, “I haven’t any brilliant notions of how to combat this propagandizing and enlisting half-formed student minds to the cause,…

It’s simple, really. Remove the money.

Faculty at college and University Humanities, Culture Studies of all stripes, and Sociology Departments have fatally violated their tenure agreement. That agreement says they have tenure in return for which they teach dispassionate scholarship.

Their part of the agreement has long since gone out the window. Their teaching is fully partisan, disingenuous, consciously fabricated, and completely political. Their department faculty are typically 90% left wingers who see no problem in scholarly dishonesty for their political cause; their ‘higher truth.’

Such departments and universities should not get public money for partisan teaching. Federal and, where possible state money for budgets and grants should be removed forthwith.

The Department of Education should survey the major universities notorious for their partisanship. Columbia, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA. Data on teaching syllabi, published papers, and political party and organization membership should be collected.

There is no doubt but that extreme prejudicial bias will be revealed. There are already published papers showing the political skewedness of university departments.

For example, M. Langbert, et al., (2016) Faculty Voter Registration in Economics, History, Journalism, Law, and Psychology Econ. J. Watch 13(3), 422–451, studied 40 top universities in the US.

Abstract here.

Democrat : Republican ratios ranged from 3.5:1 to 9.3:1 in Economics departments, and 13.4:1 to 30:1 in departments of History, Journalism, Law and Psychology. They also found the highest D:R ratios among the assistant professors and the lowest D:R among the emeriti.

The disease is obvious. So is the cure. Universities, departments and faculty have violated their tenure agreement. They no longer qualify for public funding. Take it away.

Watch them scream about free speech. The same free speech their campuses now righteously suppress. But the data are ineluctable. They’d have no case for protest.

Take away the money.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 10, 2020 12:37 pm

Pat Frank
I’m with you.
There should also be a balance in TV stations.

July 10, 2020 8:13 am

“There are so many fine blogs on the subject, including The Pipeline, Wattsupwiththat, and Climate Audit, for example, the question no longer is who can refute the silliness of the doomsday movement, but how can we make our voices heard in the face of the media-attempted blackout and the education establishments’ embrace of climate alarmism?”

with a president, congress AND senate you guys could not even field a RED TEAM

your best players still wear leather helmets. Your ground game sucks, you never had a passing game,
and every year you fail to draft any new players or new arguments.

FFS, you let a kid from europe get under your skin.

10 years ago it wasnt like this. there were skeptics who did science, mcintyre, Watts.

ok, 8 or 9 years to be exact.

but now? Heller is the best you got oh and Zoe.

unite? no chance of that

Pat Frank
Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2020 9:21 am

So says the guy who doesn’t understand LiG thermometers.

You’ve shown no understanding of science, Steve. None.

You’ve no qualification to criticize; not by training, not by demonstrated knowledge.

You’ve made nothing but an argument from authority. No matter how many your co-believers and go-to authorities, you’re still not correct.

And neither are they. Your support group doesn’t even know to distinguish a statistic from a temperature.

Zeke Hausfather, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt, the rest, and you Steve: hopelessly incompetent.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2020 10:24 am

Shirley you jest Stephen. Zoe? Putting Heller and Zoe in the same sentence as Zoe having any credibility is surely a joke? I was with you until you brought Zoe into it.

Reply to  Earthling2
July 10, 2020 1:16 pm

steve is one of those people who believes that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. And he doesn’t rank idiots.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 10, 2020 1:15 pm

How many people read WUWT compared to CNN?

Tiger Bee Fly
July 10, 2020 11:25 am

“I do not understand why our society is providing public funding to institutions and educators whose stated, conscious and explicit aim is the demolition of the culture that supports them… If radical right-wingers were receiving state funding for political operations disguised as university courses, as the radical left-wingers clearly are, the uproar from progressives across North America would be deafening.”
– Jordan Peterson

July 10, 2020 1:10 pm

One more for you Clarice – as most of us know, universities are retiring out many tenured professors and courses are being taught by adjuncts, such as myself (in addition to running a geologic consulting practice). My geology students, who of course have passed the age of emotion and reached the age of reason, LOVED my climate talks. I was the first credible person who told them that their lives were not doomed, that trying to better themselves was not an exercise in futility – and I was the first to give them the facts.

The result, one student who is obviously brainwashed to the point that they can’t abide a word of opposition, ran to the dean, and my adjunct contract was not renewed.

I am considering holding a series of public lectures, advertised specifically for those who WANT the facts. Other than that, my voice was silenced.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Thomas Gillespie
July 10, 2020 2:17 pm

Same thing happened to Susan Crockford of polarbear science, Tom.


Her offense was identical to yours: telling the truth about the science.

Maybe the two of you should collaborate and write an expose’.

There are probably more in your position. May be worth finding some to write their chapter.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 10, 2020 5:52 pm

You might be on to something there Pat, Peter Ridd comes to mind too. I’m sure there are many more. It could be a good way to let the general public know that truth is being systematically shut down, they are being lied to and it has to stop.

July 10, 2020 1:45 pm

I’ve come across a way to get young people including those in college/university (18-22) to think about the issue differently.

Part 1 – Questions to ask them:

Q1) Can you follow the science behind climate change in detail? No, and neither can I. If they claim they can ask them to explain what percentage of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and how it interacts with other greenhouse gasses.
Q2) So what do we do when we can’t follow it in detail? This applies to all claims based on “science” not just climate but it is a great example.
Q3) Do we just believe one side or the other? No. Belief is for religion and you are welcome to any belief you want but you can’t call it science.
Q4) Do we just go with what the majority of scientists say? No. Consensus is for politics and you are welcome to any political view but you can’t call it science. Besides there are dozens of examples where the majority of scientists in any given field held one position only to be proven wrong.
Q5) So what do we follow? Predictions, predictions and more predictions. The scientific method demands them and you and I can both easily follow predictions. Copy, paste save and check back later.
Q6) What predictions have come true that lead you to hold the position you do?

Part 2 – Replies to common talking points:

TP1) We don’t have time. We have to act now!
A1) That is marketting not science. “Hurry, buy now. Limited time offer. Limited quantities”. You are welcome to any marketing angle for your belief but you can’t call it science.

TP2) The precautionary principle. We should act just in case.
A2) So let CO2 go to 600 PPM. At 150 PPM most plants don’t grow. When the oceans cool, as they do during a galacition, they pull CO2 out of the air. During our last phase 40,000 years ago we were 10-15% away from not having this discussion. CO2 was down to 170-180 PPM. To be safe we should have a bigger buffer.

Reply to  TRM
July 10, 2020 3:42 pm

There’s a simpler way. Why not just quote the IPCC?

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


Section, p. 774

1) “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”

Interpretation: We don’t know the physics of the climate, and without that knowledge, it’s impossible to predict the climate’s future state going forward. The best we can do is build software models that attempt to model the physics we don’t yet know and apply probability theory to whether or not we might have potentially hit on the possible future state.

2) “This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles.”

Interpretation: See 1), “Interpretation.”

3) “The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis.”

Interpretation: We don’t yet have the computer power to run the type of software model that can truly model the climate. Even if we did, we wouldn’t know it because we don’t know how to diagnose such a model. (How could we, when we don’t know the PHYSICS of how the climate works?)

Conclusion: 1) the detailed knowledge of the physics of the climate we need is currently unknown, plus 2) no computer power to even run a software that COULD model the climate if we understood the physics, plus 3) even with 1) and 2), no way to diagnose our software to know if it correctly models the climate we haven’t the knowledge to build a software for nor the computer power to run even if we did.

Seems to me the consensus opinion of the scientists at the IPCC is, “We can’t know enough to advocate anything at the moment.”

July 11, 2020 11:59 am

Just mentioning a glairing fact.

The majority of the doom and gloom environamentalist are socalistic liberal Democrats who also, being majority white apologists, are the same people supporting BLM and Antifa riots.

In other words, egotistical self righteous who believe they know more than you do and if you don’t completely agree with them are willing to kill you because of it.


July 11, 2020 3:43 pm

I like this bit: I stopped at the first, Earth Day Network, where I learned, “Our food system accounts for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, making animal agriculture one of the largest contributors to climate change. Food production and consumption are rapidly deteriorating the planet. And what we’re eating is pushing the planet to the breaking point on climate change and deforestation.” – article

Okay, our “food system” is what allows these twits to have food on their plates. If they don’t appreciate all the improvements in modern agriculture over how it used to be done, they must want to starve to death, or something equally ridiculous.

I”m quite in favor of forbidding the lefty twits from buying food of any kind and requiring them to produce their own, even if they don’t know how. I doubt that they have a clue where food comes from, other than “the store”, and would need Meals On Wheels just to get through a few days without “the store” or a food delivery service. And forbid them to use microwaves, because those are dangerous to the something-or-other.

But seriously, if they want to live in a primitive style, let them. Just please, please, please keep them off my lawn and my street. I have enough trouble with houseflies this summer.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights