Anthony on LiveStream – ‘What Climate Emergency?’

As you may know, I’ve been invited to speak at ICCC-14. From press release:

As The Heartland Institute is getting ready for our big climate conference in Las Vegas October 15-17 (ICCC-14), we wanted to offer you some sneak previews of what the program will look like. And how better to do that than to invite our speakers to give previews of the presentations they are preparing?

In our third in this series, join us LIVE on YouTube Thursday, June 3 at 4:00 p.m. ET (3:00 p.m. CT) as Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Anthony Watts, publisher of the Watts Up With That site, gives a sneak peek of his Las Vegas presentation. In this preview, Watts will discuss the “Climate Emergency” presented by climate activists.

Watts has investigated the evidence and will illustrate why there’s no need to fear the moderate warming we’ve seen in the last century, and why claims of worsening weather, drought, and hurricanes are overblown hype.

If you join us LIVE on YouTube on Thursday, June 3 at 4:00 p.m. ET (3:00 p.m. CT) you can ask questions of Anthony in the chat.
We hope to see you there!


5 15 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 1, 2021 2:34 pm

Even the people who say there is a climate emergency don’t believe there is a climate emergency. If a ship is sinking and you are going to drown you get into the life boat. You don’t whine that lifeboats are unsafe. If the ship is sinking so slowly that there is lots of time to get into port or the pumps can keep up, then you don’t get into the lifeboat. The lifeboat in this analogy is nuclear power. Except for flying, which people sure do a lot of, nuclear power could replace almost all fossil fuels.

Reply to  starman
June 1, 2021 4:18 pm

When people ask me why I don’t believe in this nonsense, that’s my simplest answer. If I truly thought life on this planet would reach a tipping point in 10 years, I would be pushing nuclear power with my last dime. The fact that these rich tax-funded clowns jet all over and faint at the mention of nuclear power shows ne what they really believe.

Reply to  Felix
June 1, 2021 5:13 pm

9 years left. 10 years was so 2020.

Reply to  Derg
June 1, 2021 6:52 pm

8 years, 6 months to the end of the world.
Please try to keep up.

Reply to  TonyL
June 1, 2021 10:49 pm

Ha! You’re both wrong. The first 10 years left prediction was around 1990. What’s old is new again…

I notice AP has taken the date off the article. But it says “by the year 2000” right up front, and only 10 years left further down. So roughly 1990.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 2, 2021 12:31 am

To borrow a definition from Prof John Brignall, Climate Change doom merchants are those always with a ready excuse as to why their previous prediction didn’t come true!

Mark D
Reply to  Alan the Brit
June 2, 2021 5:15 pm

I thought we were all going to freeze to death in the dark? !

comment image

Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
June 3, 2021 3:24 pm

Its called a joke, though kids today would call it a meme.

Mark D
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
June 5, 2021 3:15 pm

In the middle 70’s there was in fact a TV “documentary” called

“We Will Freeze to Death in the Dark”

and there was talk of spreading power plant ash to melt the growing glaciers in the coming ice age..

Reply to  starman
June 1, 2021 7:39 pm

“Nuclear” is their own worst enemy….someone always saying there is a new generation coming that is safer, smaller, more efficient, cheaper, non-weaponizable, runs on potassium in banana peels, non-whatever….until nobody wants to risk building something due to “fast changing technology” with the result that it doesn’t move at all.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  starman
June 1, 2021 11:30 pm

It’s impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into in the first place.”


It’s impossible to reason someone out of a position they don’t actually hold.

Coach Springer
Reply to  starman
June 2, 2021 6:21 am

It’s only urgent enough to do what I think should be done?

Reply to  starman
June 2, 2021 5:38 pm

nuclear power could replace almost all fossil fuels.”


All those advanced plastics, resins, polymers, waterproofing, synthetics, etc. are derived from fossil fuels.

The same goes for many mining, refining, agrarian, fishing, etc. machines, equipment, refining, etc.

In spite of “star trek” fantasies, nuclear will not replace any of those components or needs for far from urban use fuels.

Reply to  starman
June 3, 2021 1:31 pm

Yes, agreed. The most obvious case of disbelief while talking the talk is China. If global warming really is a crisis it will hit China harder than almost anywhere else. The only way to account for the fact that they carry on building coal plants inside and outside the country, highways, making enormous quantities of cars, is that no-one in the upper levels of the hierarchy believes a word of it.

Any detached observer looking at the evidence must conclude that no-one really seems to believe it, and the puzzle is why they keep saying it so loudly.

Seems like a common feature of our current social and political environment, people proclaiming idiotic things they show no sign of believing themselves.

June 1, 2021 7:33 pm

Anthony….please refer to it as “Global Milding” at every possibility, and warmunists as “climate liars”, and refer to “Actual Warming per CO2 doubling nowhere near IPCC projections” often…

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  DMacKenzie,
June 1, 2021 9:51 pm

How about “Global Improving”? or “Global Recovery”. I’m sure others can be more imaginative than me…this could be fun!

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  Alastair Brickell
June 1, 2021 9:55 pm

Also maybe “Climate Repair” or “Climate Recovery” or whatever?

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
June 2, 2021 3:29 am

I like “Climate Recovery” as we recover from the Little Ice Age.

It’s positive where “Climate Repair” is negative as it imply’s something was broken.

We’ve let the warmists control the language for too long.

Alastair Brickell
Reply to  saveenergy
June 2, 2021 3:48 am

Yes, I agree…we are recovering from the miserable conditions of the ice ages, both big and little.

If we could get the media to use that term instead of ‘Climate Emergency’ it might make people stop and think a bit. Or is that being too optimistic these days?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  DMacKenzie,
June 2, 2021 3:48 am

Earth greening.

4 Eyes
June 1, 2021 7:47 pm

I just reread the IPCC special report of 2018. The word emergency does not appear as far I could see but I saw lots of weasel words and many references to such unrelated matters a gender and poverty and such absurdities as coral reefs will 99% disappear with a 2 degC rise in temperature. It would appear less authoritative persons have concluded their is an emergency.

Bruce Cobb
June 2, 2021 4:33 am

The Climate Liars are guilty of what amounts to as shouting “fire” and pulling the alarm bell in a crowded theater. They will not, nor should they, get off lightly.

Jeff Reppun
June 2, 2021 11:48 am

I feel that this upcoming ICCC event will just be another get together of like minded persons that will rehash the same arguments to satisfy the participants but will do nothing to achieve change. The US government agencies will always be deferred to as the authority and will give cover for politicians hell bent on saving the world with their grandiose spending plans. It will achieve about as much change as congressional hearing have produced.

What needs to be done is to take action against these government agencies for their failure to apply appropriate quality standards on the work they perform or the research they promote.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106‑554), hereinafter “Section 515,” directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue government‑wide guidelines (OMB Guidelines) that “provide policy and procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by federal agencies.

The sloppy use of the peer review process to support highly impactful legislation is completely contradictory OMB guidelines. What is needed is challenges to the science promoted by these agencies based on their own Quality Assurance Plans that each prepared to be compliant with with OMB guidelines but then ignore.

If the upcoming conferenced focus on developing strategies and assembling the right expertise to make these challenges, then perhaps some progress could be made.

Mike Dubrasich
June 2, 2021 10:49 pm

Everything Climate is the blueprint, the talking points, the easy reference site. Mr. Watts is well-prepared, possibly over-prepared to win every debate and lead the horses to water.

Of course there is no climate emergency. There has been no significant warming for years, and if such happens, it will be entirely beneficial to animals, plants, and Life Itself. The doomsayers are manifestly wrong, and the politicians who cling to the Alarmist rhetoric are crippling the economy. Get a grip and rest easy, folks, the dire emergency is a hoax.

No one better to carry this message than Anthony Watts.

David S
June 7, 2021 10:50 am

Anthony I sent your video to my daughter. This was her response:
“Thanks for sending this informative video. What I like about this guy is that he doesn’t get angry about it. He doesn’t call people names or go on a tirade. He just humbly presents his findings. We need more people like him.”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights