• Home
  • Climate Change/Global Warming

Video: Those 11,000 “Scientists” Warning About an Impending “Climate Emergency” Are Just Random People,” investigation Reveals

'This was a total managed lie. There was no study'


By Ethan Huff
DCDirtyLaundry.com

The headline was a real attention-grabber. It said "More than 11,000 scientists declare 'climate emergency.'"

That, at least, was Voice of America's title.

The article said "more than 11,000 scientists are warning that the Earth, in their words, 'clearly and unequivocally faces a climate emergency.'" It's the subject over which teen activist Greta Thunberg recently has been expressing outrage.

But, the report called "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency," wasn't a study. And they weren't all scientists.

Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh highlighted the story Monday.

"Our buddies over at Power Line discovered something. Last week (I don’t know if you saw it, there was a story, and it was big out there) 'that 11,000 scientists had issued a report contending that the Earth faces a 'climate emergency.' NBC News … described a 'study' produced by an 'international consortium of more than 11,000 scientists,''" he wrote.

He cited headlines by NBC, CNN, the London Guardian, Al-Jazeera and others.

"'There was no study, there was just a press release," he said. "And it wasn’t 11,000 scientists, it was 11,000 random people who put their names on a web page. This was a total managed lie. There was no study. There were no scientists."

He explained: "People went on a Web page and asked others reading it to put their signature on it. That was then presented as a scientific paper. It’s kind of like these two skeletons that put together Center for Science in the Public Interest that banned coconut oil, MSG. They weren’t scientists. They were just a couple people that didn’t want you to eat what you wanted so they created an icon, got a fax machine, got the media going. It was all made-up stuff."

John Hinderaker at the Powerline Blog wrote: "11,000 scientists? Just kidding."

"The world's news media reported breathlessly that 11,000 scientists had issued a report contending that the Earth faces a 'climate emergency.' NBC News, to cite just one example, described a 'study' produced by an 'international consortium of more than 11,000 scientists.'"

The blog posted a screen shot of headlines by NBC, CNN and others.

"Actually, there was no study, there was just a press release. And it wasn't 11,000 scientists, it was 11,000 random people who put their names on a web page. But today's reporters are so biased and so incompetent that when it comes to 'climate change,' they will swallow anything," Powerline reported.

It posted a video explaining the problem:
 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Globalists Openly Admit To Population Control Agenda - And That's A Bad Sign...


By Brandon Smith
Alt-Market.com

 

Eugenics and population control are long time hobbies of the financial elites.

In the early 1900's, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institute were deeply involved in promoting Eugenics laws in the US. These laws led to the forced sterilization of over 60,000 American citizens in states like California and thousands of rejected marriage licenses. The Eugenics programs in the US were only a beta test though, as the Rockefellers then transferred their programs over to Germany under Hitler and the Third Reich in the 1930's, were a true widespread eugenics-based population control program was introduced.

The targets of population reduction were based on ethnic background, but also “mental intelligence” and economic status. The Carnegie Institute even established a “Eugenics Records Office” called Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory in 1904, which collected genetic data on millions of Americans and their families with the intent of controlling their numbers and erasing certain traits from the US population. The Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory still exists today and presents itself as a kind of philanthropic endeavor to help humanity.

Public knowledge of the globalists and their population control agenda was carefully swept under the rug in the US after the exposure of Nazi programs post-WWII. The word “eugenics” became a very ugly one and all the effort the elites put into promoting it as a legitimate science was ruined. However, they were not going to give up on their precious ideology.

In the late 1960's into the 1970's there was a resurgence of population control rhetoric coming out of globalist circles. Under the supervision of the UN and some related scientific groups, the Club Of Rome was formed. A prominent part of the Club of Rome's agenda was population reduction. In 1972 the group of “scientists” under the UN's direction published a paper called 'The Limits Of Growth', which called for greatly reduced human population in the name of “saving the environment”. This effort was directly linked to another agenda – the institution of a global government that could handle and enforce population controls on a wide scale.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Exposing The Bogus "97% Consensus" Claim Over Climate Change 'Science'



By Robert Murphy
Mises.org

 

One of the popular rhetorical moves in the climate change debate is for advocates of aggressive government intervention to claim that “97% of scientists” agree with their position, and so therefore any critics must be unscientific “deniers.”

Now these claims have been dubious from the start; people like David Friedman have demonstrated that the “97% consensus” assertion became a talking point only through a biased procedure that mischaracterized how journal articles were rated, and thereby inflating the estimate.

But beyond that, a review in The New Republic of a book critical of mainstream economics uses the exact same degree of consensus in order to cast aspersions on the science of economics. In other words, when it comes to the nearly unanimous rejection of rent control or tariffs among professional economists, at least some progressive leftists conclude that there must be group-think involved. The one consistent thread in both cases—that of the climate scientists and that of the economists—is that The New Republic takes the side that will expand the scope of government power, a central tenet since its birth by Herbert Croly a century ago.

The Dubious “97% Consensus” Claim Regarding Climate Science

Back in 2014, David Friedman worked through the original paper that kicked off the “97% consensus” talking point. What the original authors, Cook et al., actually found in their 2013 paper was that 97.1% of the relevant articles agreed that humans contribute to global warming. But notice that that is not at all the same thing as saying that humans are the main contributors to observed global warming (since the Industrial Revolution).

This is a huge distinction. For example, I co-authored a Cato study with climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, in which we strongly opposed a U.S. carbon tax. Yet both Michaels and Knappenberger would be climate scientists who were part of the “97% consensus” according to Cook et al. That is, Michaels and Knappenberger both agree that, other things equal, human activity that emits carbon dioxide will make the world warmer than it otherwise would be. That observation by itself does not mean there is a crisis nor does it justify a large carbon tax.

Incidentally, when it comes down to what Cook et al. actually found, economist David R. Henderson noticed that it was even less impressive than what Friedman had reported. Here’s Henderson:

[Cook et al.] got their 97 percent by considering only those abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position. So, taking into account David Friedman’s criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, “Of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.” That doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? [David R. Henderson, bold added.]

So to sum up: The casual statements in the corporate media and in online arguments would lead the average person to believe that 97% of scientists who have published on climate change think that humans are the main drivers of global warming. And yet, at least if we review the original Cook et al. (2013) paper that kicked off the talking point, what they actually found was that of the sampled papers on climate change, only one-third of them expressed a view about its causes, and then of that subset, 97% agreed that humans were at least one cause of climate change. This would be truth-in-advertising, something foreign in the political discussion to which all AGW issues now seem to descend.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Top 10 Reasons Why Greta Thunberg Is a Fraud


Here are some of the top reasons why Greta Thunberg is a pawn and a fraud, manufactured by PR firms and used by an army of globalist climate change alarmists that seek to gain more financial and political control. They are creating an apocalyptic cult obsesses with the end of the world.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Global Warming Children’s Crusade

Exploiting callow youth as props in a trendy and sinister farce.


By Bruce Thornton
FrontPageMag.com

In 1212, thousands of children and teens in France and England set off for the Holy Land to convert Muslims to Christianity. Led by shepherds, these mostly poor and dispossessed young people headed for the Mediterranean, believing it would miraculously part and allow them to cross on dry land. Instead, the children, promised free passage by a couple of unscrupulous merchants, were sold into slavery or died in a shipwreck.

Last week’s Climate Strike by schoolchildren to “save the planet” is a grotesque parody of this legend of faith and courage, yet no more likely to accomplish anything useful. The strike was the first act of this week’s UN’s “Global Climate Week,” along with blocking traffic in DC (with the help of Antifa and Black Lives Matter), a “Youth Climate Summit,” and an orgy of hypocrisy at the UN General Assembly. No doubt we’ll see “world leaders” dramatically call for “global action,” then pass symbolic resolutions that, like every “climate summit” since 1979, will do absolutely nothing to lower temperatures enough to stop the warmists’ alleged apocalypse.

But instead of young pilgrims risking and losing their lives on behalf of their faith, the Climate “pilgrims” are mostly the global comfortable and affluent enjoying a day off from school as they preen and pontificate about a subject they know little about, and bask in the attention and flattery of important “grown-ups” like Hollywood stars and venal politicians equally ignorant about how global climate works.

In the “woke” children’s anti-carbon crusade––a word, of course, the progs have proscribed as “Islamophobic––callow youth are increasingly becoming the props in a fashionable farce whose sinister aim is dismantling the West’s economies, and further concentrating political and economic power at the expense of we the people.

This global publicity stunt shows why sensible people don’t take adolescents seriously––and why progressives want to lower the voting age––when it comes to complex issues of public policy and the trade-offs required by a participatory democracy. Most adolescents are by nature narcissists and drama queens, and think histrionic emotion is more important than cold facts, sound arguments, and real-world limits to gratifying their petulant demands for utopia. And they like nothing better than to have supposedly mature adults validate their feelings with attention and novel diagnoses of psychological ailments that cover for mere immaturity. So no surprise we’re now hearing about “eco-anxiety” caused by reports of impending “environmental doom,” calls to stave off a deadly “climate crisis,” as the Economist called a whole special issue hyping climate doom, and warnings that “panic is long overdue,” according to Salon.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Exposing Junk Climate Science


RealClimateScience.com

This twelve-minute video by Tony Heller of Real Climate Science, released just yesterday, does a great job of exposing the deceptive use of data on which climate alarmism depends. Heller begins with the National Climate Assessment that recently went out to journalists and policymakers
.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Science is Advancing Us Towards Eating Bugs To Fight Climate Change. Seriously!


By Scott Boyd
NOQReport.com


It’s the type of headline I dread reading because invariably it fails to deliver on its click-bait premise. I never thought I would be writing such a headline myself, but that’s exactly what’s happening. I could have gone with the more provocative
headlineswhichis also mostly true: “Science is advancing us towards cannibalism to fight climate change. Even though their is evidence that this is an accurate assessment, I opted for the less controversial invocation of edible insects so as not to turn people off from clicking.

They want us to eat bugs. Some want us to eat recently deceased humans as well, but not quite as many. Not yet, at least.

We’ve all heard the stories about Democrats pushing for regulations and even bans on certain food products that allegedly drive climate change. It’s all over the news now as the hypocrites drink from straws and eat hot dogs at the Iowa State Fair, only to turn around a week later and condemn people for doing what they did.

Meanwhile, their cronies in the “sciences” are pushing the radical climate change agenda for them and have gone so far as to attempt to normalize the consumption of insects as a valid protein source. Bugs are high in protein. Their scrumptious to warthogs. When are humans going to take the hint?

This video from Truthstream Media is a rant that’s worth watching. In it, they detail how the insane religion of Earth worship, also known as climate change activism, is applying science to make us insectivores. Locust burgers are around the corner.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

5 Surprising Scientific Facts About Earth’s Climate

There are many environmental facts that run contrary to popular belief. Here are five of them.


By Vijay Jayaraj
Fee.org

On the weekend of August 10–11, as if in chorus, major online news websites called on people to stop consuming meat. The calls echoed a recent United Nations report that recommended doing so to fight climate change.

It surprised many, but there are other more surprising facts about climate change that are hardly published in our everyday news media.

Below are some facts—scientifically recognized and published in peer-reviewed journals—that may raise your eyebrows.

All proxy temperature data sets reveal that there have been cyclical changes in climate in the past 10,000 years. There is not a single climate scientist who denies this well-established fact. It doesn’t matter what your position on the causes and magnitude and danger (or not) of current climate change is—you have to be on board on this one. Climate has always changed. And it has changed in both directions, hot and cold. Until at least the 17th century, all these changes occurred when almost all humans were hunters, gatherers, and farmers.
 

Industrialization did not happen until the 17th century. Therefore, no prior changes in climate were driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide. In the last 2,000 years alone, global temperatures rose at least twice (around the 1st and 10th centuries) to levels very similar to today’s, and neither of those warm periods were caused by humans.
 

Yes, you read that right. The 10,000-year Holocene paleoclimatology records reveal that both the Arctic and Antarctic are in some of their healthiest states. The only better period for the poles was the 17th century, during the Little Ice Age, when the ice mass levels were higher than today’s. For the larger part of the past 10,000 years, the ice mass levels were lower than today’s. Despite huge losses in recent decades, ice mass levels are at or near their historic highs.
 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: YouTube ‘Corrects’ Conservative Comic on Global Warming

Make fun of Al Gore? YouTube will slap a 'Fact Check' on you without your permission.


By Christian Toto
Hollywoodintoto.com

 

Michael Loftus admits he’ll grab any excuse to share his Al Gore impression.

Why not? It’s rock solid. Only this time the Big Tech Overlords were listening, too. And, apparently, they weren’t pleased that Loftus poked fun at the “Inconvenient Sequel” star.

The most recent Loftus Party video mocks both the former Vice President as well as President Barack Obama. The latter brought it on himself, to be fair.

The Obamas just bought a $15 million property on Martha’s Vineyard, AKA land kissing the Atlantic Ocean. The move drew plenty of criticism from conservatives, but not for any one-percent complaints.

Why would someone who believes global warming is causing the oceans to rise gobble up coastal property?

It’s a legitimate question, one most journalists refuse to ask. Not Loftus. The conservative comic joined the fray, using comedy to pile on the former President.

Enter YouTube.

The increasingly liberal channel stepped in, adding its own editorial slant to the video. The comedy clip now features a horizontal addendum below the frame. The text, credited to Wikipedia, describes Global Warming in a clinical fashion.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)