Steven Crowder does what the media wouldn’t: read the entire Green New Deal from start to finish. It goes about as expected.

Only 5 pages, takes 15 minutes to read.

WattsUpWithThat.com
 

Independent scientists must review alarmist “science” that is driving anti-fossil fuel policies

John Droz

America is in the midst of a cataclysmic battle – and yet you’ve likely heard very little about it.

Right now, the 30-year US global warming fight is coming to a pivotal juncture – within the next few days. It is vital that we take immediate action to support President Trump on an important initiative.

Dr. William Happer (an eminently qualified scientist in the White House) has proposed the Presidential Committee on Climate Science [or Presidential Commission on Climate Security] (PCCS).

The PCCS will bring together multiple qualified scientists who will review such significant issues as global warming’s alleged impact on national security, agriculture, sea levels and extreme weather. Their assignment will be to separate real, evidence-based science from agenda-driven political science.

Those who want a genuine scientific assessment of global warming / climate change claims fully support the PCCS.

They know claims that American and the world face imminent disaster from soaring planetary temperatures, rising seas, more frequent and extreme storms and droughts, species extinctions and other human-caused climate calamities have never been subjected to full-throttled scientific review in a public forum. That’s because every attempt to have such a review has been opposed and silenced.

Those who oppose a real scientific assessment of climate chaos claims are against the PCCS. Not surprisingly, so far the most vocal and dominant voices oppose any scientific review of their claims. (See here, here and here.)

They know their “science” is based on computer models and is contradicted by real-world evidence.

We need to make it clear to the President that citizens are following the PCCS matter, and that citizens fully support this excellent idea. There are two ways to send the President a message on this vital topic:

Phone the White House comment line: 1-202-456-1111

Email the White House explaining your support using this link.

Doing both would be even better!

The President’s decision is expected within the week, so please do this quickly.

To give you some perspective on the PCCS matter, I wrote two new documents:

1) Answers to some of the PCCS critics’ objections, and

2) Background on the 30-some year history of US climate alarmism (and how the PCCS fits in).

I hope there will be a segment about the PCCS on Fox News, an article or editorial in the Wall Street Journal, and more sensible articles on other media outlets (like this, this, this, and this).

These faulty to even fraudulent global warming and climate change claims are the driving force behind the Green New Deal’s plans to terminate fossil fuel use, ban cattle raising, and eliminate cars and airplanes; force us to rely on wind and solar power that would blanket millions of acres with turbines and panels; and replace our free enterprise system with socialist policies that would take money from you – and give it to someone else.

Get involved. Write to President Trump – and ask him to appoint his PCCS immediately.

John Droz, Jr. is a physicist and director of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), which promotes energy policies and programs that are technically, economically and environmentally sound.

By Peter D'Abrosca
BigLeaguePolitics.com

A 1989 Associated Press article has re-surfaced citing “environmental officials” who scare-mongered about the end of the earth as we know it if “global warming” was not addressed by the year 2000.

“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000,” the piece said.

The report is particularly relevant today, as it echoes the same type of rhetoric pushed by the radical political left. Recently, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) proposed a “Green New Deal” with the hefty price tag of $93 million to the taxpayer, in order to save the world from the same impending doom that climate scientists have been warning about for decades. The apocalypse, as it turns out, is quite fickle. It has eluded us, despite the warnings from the esteemed members of the scientific community.

“Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco- refugees,’ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP,” according to the report. “He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.”

That 10-year window came to pass. So did another one. And soon, another will have done the same. Still no doom and gloom.

The piece continued:

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

hifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

None of that has happened.

But that has not stopped the political left from continuously fear-mongering. Still, they will call Republicans “climate deniers” or “science deniers” if you rebuke their alarmism this time around.

Follow Peter D’Abrosca on Twitter: @pdabrosca

Like Peter D’Abrosca on Facebook: facebook.com/peterdabrosca

Investors.com

Environmentalism: A new report calls the lie on the grand Paris climate change treaty. None of the promised cuts in CO2 emissions that 200-plus countries made will come close to preventing a climate "catastrophe." And many of the industrialized nations aren't even living up to the promises they did make.

Two years ago, when the Paris agreement took effect, then-President Obama declared that "history may well judge it as a turning point for our planet."

It was a turning point in the level of empty rhetoric, perhaps. But it won't make a bit of difference to the planet.

This farce was made abundantly clear in an annual report by Climate Transparency, an international group focused on the G-20 nations.
 

Empty Promises

What did it find? "None of the G-20 (emissions targets) is in line with the Paris Agreement." The report shows an enormous gap between what the countries have pledged to do, and the far lower CO2 emissions levels that the U.N. says are needed to keep the planet from warming by 2 degrees Celsius.

In other words, even if every country lived up to their Paris pledges, it wouldn't come close to preventing "catastrophic warming."

It gets worse. As the report shows, most G-20 countries aren't on track to meet the modest greenhouse gas reductions they pledged to achieve by 2030.

As the Climate Transparency report notes, the EU "is not on track to meet its 2030 target." Nor is Mexico, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan or Turkey.

A number of G-20 countries actually saw their emissions increase in 2017, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Turkey.

There's more:

Saudi Arabia's emissions will likely double by 2030, compared with 2014. Turkey continues to increase coal-power capacity even though it "runs strongly counter" to its pledges. Japan also has several coal plants in the pipeline. Brazil's deforestation rate has increased, despite its Paris promises to the contrary. Russia's "target is so weak that it would not require a decrease in (greenhouse gas) emissions from current levels."

And, to top it off, CO2 emission in China, already the world's largest emitter, will likely continue to increase until 2030, the report finds. It notes that coal consumption in China "increased again in 2017."
 

Faulty Doomsday Scenarios

Longtime IBD readers know that we are highly skeptical of all the climate change doomsday scenarios. They're all based on 100-year forecasts made by computer models that have trouble predicting what's already happened. And then there's the fact that climate scientists keep getting caught fudging numbers and making basic math errors. The latest involves a highly publicized study on ocean warming. These errors, by the way, always seem to go in one direction: toward making global warming look more ominous. (Related: Is Global Warming a Hoax? Climate Change Facts and Fiction.)

But even if the dire prediction environmentalist make is true, trying to cut CO2 emissions to prevent it is pointless. As we noted in this space recently, the U.N. says global CO2 emissions must be cut in half within 12 years, and reduced to zero in 32 years.

It should be abundantly clear now that not a single G-20 nation is taking the climate change issue seriously — no matter how much they preach about it, and no matter how many empty promises they make.
 

A Better Way to Deal with Climate Change

That's fine by us, since we think it's a waste of money. President Trump was right to pull the U.S. out of this farce rather than lend it any more undue credibility.

There is a better and far more sensible and frugal approach to deal with "climate change." Forget about wasting money in a futile attempt to quickly decarbonize every economy on the planet. Instead, deal with localized changes if they ever occur. Adaptation to hostile climates is something humanity has shown an amazing ability to achieve, even without modern technology.

The only drawback to this approach is that politicians won't be able to pat themselves on the back for "saving the planet."

By Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor
DailyCaller.com
 

• The media fawned over a recent global warming study that had a major math error, researchers found.
• It turns out, the math error made it appear as if oceans warmed more than previously thought.
• Major media outlets uncritically covered the study, sounding the alarm on global warming.

The recent headline-grabbing study that claimed global warming was heating the oceans up faster than expected suffers from a major math error, according to two researchers.

The study, which was published in a prestigious scientific journal at the end of October, put forward results suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed. The media ate the results up.

Independent scientist Nic Lewis found the study had “apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.” Lewis’ findings were quickly corroborated by another researcher.

Numerous media outlets uncritically highlighted the study’s findings. The Washington Post, for example, reported the work suggested “Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted.”

The Post’s coverage of the “startling” climate study was echoed by The New York Times, which claimed the study suggested global warming “has been more closely in line with scientists’ worst-case scenarios.”

The BBC warned “[t]his could make it much more difficult to keep global warming within safe levels this century.”

Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.

By Jay Greenberg
Neonnettle.com

The first ever audit on the official data used for Climate Change has found the figures to be "riddled with errors," making it "effectively useless."

The world's most important temperature data, HadCRUT4, is used by international governmental bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This dataset is what the dramatic claims about “man-made global warming” are based on, with governments using the data to justify spending trillions of dollars on “combating climate change” while it's also the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.

For the first time, however, the data has been audited by Australian researcher John McLean, who says it’s far too inaccurate to be taken seriously, even by climate scientists.

According to a groundbreaking analysis by McLean, the figures should never have been used by a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.

It’s very careless and amateur, he says.  About the standard of a first-year university student.

SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The ‘Godfather’ Global Warming Was Wrong

Michael Bastasch
TheDailyCaller.com

Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue compared Hansen’s temperature predictions to real-world observations and found his supposedly “highly unlikely” forecast with the least amount of warming was the most accurate.

“Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16,” Michaels and Maue wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

“Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect,” the two scientists wrote. “But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong.”

“Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago,” they wrote. (RELATED: Congress Demands EPA Investigate Potential Collusion With Lobbyists To Thwart Trump’s Agenda)

Climate model accuracy has become a major source of debate as scientists realized predictions diverged greatly from observations over the last 15 years or so. Governments often rely on climate models to justify climate policies or regulations, meaning inaccurate models can yield bad policies.

Hansen laid out three global warming scenarios in 1988 at an iconic congressional hearing: a high-end one where the world warms about 1 degree Celsius by 2018, a middle-range of 0.7 degrees of warming and a low-end estimate with only a few tenths of a degree of warming. The hearing was held on a hot summer day and was organized by none other than former Democratic Rep. Al Gore of Tennessee.

Hansen wished he hadn’t been so accurate in predicting future warming, contradicting Michaels and Maue, he told the Associated Press on Monday. AP claimed Hansen’s predictions had “pretty much come true so far, more or less.”

“I don’t want to be right in that sense,” Hansen said, adding he wished “that the warning be heeded and actions be taken.”

Many other scientists the AP spoke with raved about Hansen’s predictions. Berkeley climate scientist Zeke Hausfather tweeted: “Hansen’s 1988 projections have largely been borne out.”

Hansen’s 1988 projections have largely been borne out, though he predicted modestly higher climate forcings and warming in Scenario B than what occurred. His model’s climate sensitivity (4.2C/doubling of CO2) is also on the high end of current estimates. https://t.co/gtYoK0X2f5 pic.twitter.com/a693ikoy2P

— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) June 18, 2018

However, Michaels and Maue said Hansen’s predictions only look correct because of the strong El Nino effect, a naturally occurring warming event, that began in 2015. Global temperatures have actually come down quite a bit since El Nino subsided.

“The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models — and the U.N.’s — is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases,” Michaels and Maue wrote.

“Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures,” the two wrote. “The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.”

The two Cato scientists also took on Hansen’s other failed predictions, including those about the Greenland ice melt, temperatures in the U.S. Midwest, hurricanes and tornadoes.

“The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious,” Michaels and Maue wrote.

“These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?” they wrote.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

 

Investors.com

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

"The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average."

Isn't this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?

In this case, it didn't warrant any news coverage.

In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown's story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism's impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that "our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly."

Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump's face into a glacier to prove climate change "is happening."

In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades.

What's more, journalists are perfectly willing to jump on any individual weather anomaly — or even a picture of a starving polar bear — as proof of global warming. (We haven't seen any stories pinning Hawaii's recent volcanic activity on global warming yet, but won't be surprised if someone tries to make the connection.)

We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years.

Hiding The Evidence

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets.

Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden "deniers" and undermine support for immediate, drastic action.

But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk.

Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. "At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported."

He goes on: "Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all."

Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they're doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky credibility at greater risk.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

U.S. Cuts 'Global Warming' Gases Faster Than Anyone Else, But Media Ignore It

Despite What You've Heard, Global Warming Isn't Making Weather More Extreme