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.

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.

1. Climate Has Always Changed—Always

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.
 

2. Temperature Increase in the Past Was Not Caused by Humans

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.
 

3. The Arctic and Antarctic Are Doing Better than Ever!

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.
 

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.

Do you like apples? Well, America hasn’t warmed in the last decade-plus.

How do you like them apples?

Here’s the scoop, via RealClearEnergy:

When American climate alarmists claim to have witnessed the effects of global warming, they must be referring to a time beyond 14 years ago. That is because there has been no warming in the United States since at least 2005, according to updated data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In January 2005, NOAA began recording temperatures at its newly built U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCRN includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations. Strikingly, as shown in the graph below, USCRN temperature stations show no warming since 2005 when the network went online. If anything, U.S. temperatures are now slightly cooler than they were 14 years ago.

How will the left attempt to spin this one? Are they the “party of science” or the party of “whatever we say goes?”

By Rich Welsh
DavidHarrisJr.com

Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, is the creator of the famous (infamous?) “hockey stick graph” that global warming nuts have used to show global temperatures rose during the time period when man began using fossil fuels that were releasing CO₂ or Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.

When published back in 1998, the graph was featured in Al Gore’s 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth.  That movie should have been titled A Series Of Lies To Gain Power And Allow Governments Around the World To Fleece Their Citizens Of Their Hard-Earned Money By Scaring Them Into Paying For An Elaborate Scheme To Save The Planet From Something That Isn’t Even Happening, but they couldn’t get it to fit on the video tape label.

You wouldn’t know this if you get your news from CNN or MSNBC, but the methodology used to come up with the hockey stick graph has always been a problem for real scientists, kinda like me.  I am a Sr. Computer Programmer in another life, some would call that a computer scientist.  What’s that got to do with any of this?

The hockey stick graph was the product of a software program that the Climate Research Unit (CRU) used to get the temperature readings that created the graph.  There’s evidence that the software code was deliberately screwing around with the data to make it appear that temperatures were rising.

The code was written in a software language called IDL, or Iterative Data Language.

Here’s a snippet of code that was in one of the source files for the program called briffa_Sep98_d.pro:

By Edward Ring
AmericanGreatness.com

Conservative free speech advocates have been rightly concerned about internet censorship, but the focus of those concerns has been relatively narrow. Conservatives are pushing back against big tech suppression of online critics of globalism, mass immigration, and identity politics. They are pushing back against Big Tech suppression ofpro-Trump commentators. But there is another collection of online voices that quietly and very effectively have been suppressed: climate-change skeptics.

In the past 10 or 15 years, roughly at the same time as identity politics was assuming a dominant position in America’s corporate, academic, and media cultures, climate alarm followed a parallel trajectory. But starting in 2017, when the social media monopolies intensified their online offensive against politically incorrect content, climate skeptic content had already dwindled. It isn’t hard to understand why.

Identity politics, globalism, and mass immigration create obvious winners and losers, with Americans bitterly and almost evenly divided over what policies represent the best moral and practical choices. Policies and principles embracing “climate change,” by contrast, have conducted their own long, slow march through America’s institutions without encountering serious resistance. Proclaiming one’s belief in climate change dogma carries minimal downside and plenty of upside.

Embracing climate-change politics enriches and empowers the same cast of characters who embrace globalism—corporations, governments, the financial sector, nonprofits, academia, and the useful idiots in media and entertainment. 

Meanwhile, the downside of climate change policies is harder to articulate than the downside of globalism. As a result, financial support for scientists and analysts tagged as climate change “deniers” has nearly dried up over the past decade or so. Whoever is left confronts an overwhelming climate alarm apparatus.

Since time immemorial, our climate has been and will always be changing. Patrick Moore explains why “climate change,” far from being a recent human-caused disaster, is, for a myriad of complex reasons, a fact of life on Planet Earth.

In just the past 2000 years:

• the Roman Warm Period (warmer than today)
• the cooler Dark Ages
• the Medieval Warm period
• the Little Ice Age (which drove the Vikings out of Greenland)
• and a gradual 300-year warming.

That's a lot of changes. And of course, none were caused by humans.

ZeroHedge.com

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. 

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors. 

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover. 

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity. 

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team: 

Nils-Axel Morner, a former head of the Paleo-Geophysics and Geodynamics Department in Stockholm, says the notion that CO2 drives climate is an enormous fraud and the fact is a new solar-driven cooling period for the Earth is ‘not far off’.