I’m being prosecuted for calling human rights commissions “crazy”

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is Ridiculous & Dead Wrong on Global Warming

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJuly 6, 2015 8:34 PM

Climate Depot Exclusive

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.
“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”

“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.

“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.

“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change.

The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.
“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Global Warming ‘a new religion’

Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty

“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.

“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

“I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”

“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.

On Global Temperatures & CO2

Giaever noted that global temperatures have halted for the past 18 plus years.

The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

Giaever accused NASA and federal scientists of “fiddling” with temperatures.

“They can fiddle with the data. That is what NASA does.”

“You cannot believe the people — the alarmists — who say CO2 is a terrible thing. Its not true, its absolutely not true,” Giaever continued while showing a slide asking: ‘Do you believe CO2 is a major climate gas?’

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

“How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and come up with a fraction of a degree. I think the average temperature of earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. How can you think it can measure this to a fraction of a degree? It’s ridiculous,” he added.

Silencing Debate

Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”

“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.

“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.

Extreme Weather claims

“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.
“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.

“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.

“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.

“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.

“Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.”

Media Hype

“What people say is not true. I spoke to a journalist with [German newspaper Die Welt yesterday…and I asked how many articles he published that says global warming is a good thing. He said I probably don’t publish them at all. Its always a negative. Always,” Giever said.

Energy Poverty

“They say refugees are trying to cross the Mediterranean. These people are not fleeing global warming, they are fleeing poverty,” he noted.

“If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills,” he added.

“Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills rather than helping people? These people have been misled. It costs money in the end to that. Windmills cost money.”

“Cheap energy is what made us so rich and now suddenly people don’t want it anymore.”

“People say oil companies are the big bad people. I don’t understand why they are worse than the windmill companies. General Electric makes windmills. They don’t tell you that they are not economical because they make money on it. But nobody protests GE, but they protest Exxon who makes oil,” he noted.

Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.

In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming.

Giaever has become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears. He was featured prominently in the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of (then) Over 700 Dissenting International Scientists from Man-made global warming. Giaever, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and won the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics.

Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming.

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can’t be discussed — just like religion…there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”


Yannick Gagné
Libre@penseur
7 juillet 2015 


 By: Marc Morano - Climate Depot 

L'opportunisme et le spectacle

Lorsque Julie Snyder a eu besoin d'être drôle, elle s'est mise en couple avec Stéphane Laporte.

Lorsque Julie Snyder a eu besoin de faire carrière en France, elle a embrassé Michel Drucker.

Lorsque Julie Snyder a eu besoin de contrats de production chez TVA, elle s'est unie a Pierre-Karl Péladeau.

Maintenant, Julie Snyder a besoin de crédits d'impôt...

Yannick Gagné
Libre@penseur
30 juin 2015

La poule aux oeufs climatiques

Le blogue de Reynald Du Berger
Climat, science et société

Dans les années 1970, quand je faisais mes premières armes comme membre d’une équipe de recherche, j’ai passé des soirées entières à rédiger des demandes de subventions avec mes collègues. Nos chances de succès dépendaient entre autres de notre capacité à démontrer au jury, comment notre recherche allait aider à résoudre des problèmes criants pour les Canadiens et ainsi contribuer à leur bien-être. Je devais par exemple, convaincre les examinateurs que la connaissance de l’épaisseur et de la structure de la croûte terrestre à travers le Front du Grenville aiderait à l’exploration minière dans les régions de l’Abitibi et de Chibougamau. Nous utilisions même les prévisions du Club de Rome, sur l’épuisement des ressources minérales, aussi fausses que celles du GIEC sur l’apocalypse climatique, pour justifier nos recherches.

Le 25 novembre 1988, un tremblement de terre important m’offrait une occasion en or de mettre à niveau mon laboratoire de sismologie. Des milliers de personnes au Saguenay étaient sous le choc. Quelques dizaines de millions$ de dommages matériels seulement, mais beaucoup de peur, d’angoisse, qui se traduisaient par des insomnies. Un soir, on a réuni des centaines de personnes dans le sous-sol d’une église, afin que les psychologues tentent d’apaiser leurs craintes. En vain. Ces gens voulaient plutôt entendre des sismologues, des spécialistes qui leur expliquent ce qui s’était passé et ce qui risquait d’arriver. Comment agir avant, pendant et après un séisme. En plus de mon enseignement, j’avais deux nouvelles tâches qui me tombaient dessus inopinément : je devais relever quotidiennement mes sismographes sur le terrain et répondre à cette population angoissée, par des présentations sur les séismes avec diapositives dans les écoles et foyers de personnes âgées. Une fois, je suis sorti d’une de ces séances avec une tourtière et une paire de pantoufles en phantex! Une mère m’a téléphoné pour me remercier d’avoir visité la classe de 2ième année de son fils; « pour la première fois, il a dormi tout seul dans sa chambre au sous-sol » me dit-elle avec reconnaissance et émotion. Une dame artiste peintre, dont l’atelier se trouvait dans le sous-sol de sa demeure, n’y était pas retournée depuis un mois. Je l’ai prise par la main et nous y sommes descendus ensemble; un des murs avait été enfoncé par le mouvement sismique. Elle y descendait toute seule le lendemain.  Il m’est arrivé de trouver dans ma case à courrier à l’université, des petits messages d’encouragement  de la part de compagnons ou compagnes de travail qui me disaient être fiers de travailler dans la même université que moi. J’aurais pu me faire une grosse tête et surtout profiter de la peur et de l’angoisse de ces gens pour leur demander de me « récompenser » au moyen de subventions de recherche. J’ai plutôt choisi de faire passer le bien-être de mes concitoyens avant mes intérêts personnels. J’ai obtenu par la suite de généreuses subventions de la part de mon université, du gouvernement et de firmes privées, sans vraiment les avoir sollicitées.

C’est Richard Lindzen, climatologue au MIT qui rappelait combien la peur est un outil efficace pour aller chercher des subventions de recherche. Ce fut d’abord la peur du cancer, puis celle des soviétiques (course à l’espace et surtout aux armements) et maintenant peur du réchauffement climatique d’origine anthropique. Vous avez davantage de chances d’obtenir de l’argent de quelqu’un en lui braquant un revolver sur la tempe qu’en sollicitant simplement sa gratitude nous rappelle Lindzen. Et si en plus de leur faire peur, vous les rançonnez à la manière de certains biologistes forestiers, en leur offrant la rémission annuelle (les Pâques carboniques) de leurs péchés carboniques contre une pénitence imposée selon leurs émissions, vos chances sont encore meilleures. Plusieurs chercheurs à l’éthique élastique ont compris cela et l’exploitent, et pas seulement des scientifiques du climat, mais des chercheurs dans des domaines aussi éloignés – en apparence- du climat que l’hydrogéologie, la foresterie, la zoologie, la botanique, la glaciologie, la géologie, la géophysique, la médecine, et même l’anthropologie, etc… Comment un hydrogéologue peut-il en arriver à identifier un changement climatique global pour expliquer le comportement d’une nappe phréatique locale? Comment un de mes voisins hydraulicien peut-il prédire que les crues de ma rivière seront ni de plus en plus fréquentes et de plus en plus sévères, à cause d’événements météorologiques « extrêmes » causés bien sûr par le réchauffement climatique? Et cette hausse « accélérée » du niveau des océans qui forcera des millions de « réfugiés du climat » à exiger asile dans les pays riches et capitalistes, responsables de leur malheur… ça ne vous émeut point, bande de climato-sceptiques!?

Quelqu’un a-t-il fait une étude sur le nombre de demandes de subventions de recherche provenant de chercheurs dans tous ces domaines, de la médecine à la botanique, en passant par la géologie, qui arriment leurs demandes de subventions à ce pseudo-problème de réchauffement climatique anthropique? Ils ont flairé une énorme et bien grasse poule aux œufs d’or et ils ont bien l’intention de continuer de l’exploiter, aussi longtemps que leurs concitoyens auront peur. Mois je tente de lui tordre le cou. 

MÔMAN !… VIENS M’CHARCHER !!!

Le blogue de Reynald Du Berger
Climat, science et société

C’est le cri déchirant qu’on a tous entendu dans les médias, surtout à Radio-Canada. Cri canadien , mais poussé surtout par des Québécois, provenant du camp « de base » situé en effet à la base de l’Everest. Plutôt que nous montrer des Népalais braves et courageux aux prises avec leur tâche de venir en aide à leurs concitoyens victimes de ce drame , les médias de Radio-Canada ont préféré nous montrer et nous faire entendre les plaintes larmoyantes de pleurnichards qui reprochent à leur gouvernemaman canadien de ne pas les avoir pris en charge et sortis illico du pétrin dans lequel ils se sont pourtant fourrés en toute connaissance de cause.

Mais qui sont ces Canadiens « pognés » au Népal par des routes bloquées par des avalanches et des glissements de terrain? De jeunes cadres en congé? des étudiants en sciences molles de l’UQAM en « sabbatique » entre deux manifs? et qui veulent démontrer ainsi leurs prouesses d’alpinistes à des amis en grimpant sur des tas de cailloux qu’une chèvre peut escalader plus rapidement et avec plus d’élégance? Si seulement ils s’agissait de travailleurs bénévoles humanitaires. Non, la plupart ne sont là que pour le « trip » et pour ainsi épater leur galerie.

Ont-ils seulement pris le temps de consulter le site « conseils aux voyageurs canadiens » avant de choisir d’aller tenter cette aventure?

J’ai visité une soixantaine de pays, dont plusieurs qualifiés de « pays de cul » par les proches qui voulaient m’en dissuader. Plusieurs de ces pays – Libye, Syrie, Liban, Iran, Yémen- avaient des alertes rouges. J’y suis allé quand-même, en assumant les risques. Avant de partir, j’ai prévenu mes proches et ma famille, que si jamais j’étais dans la merde, il ne fallait pas demander au gouvernement canadien de me venir en aide. J’avais lu les consignes claires du gouvernement, j’avais choisi d’y aller quand-même et j’assumais les risques, risques de catastrophes naturelles ou d’enlèvements comme au Yémen.

À Bosra en Syrie, j’ai été encerclé par un groupe de jeunes de l’Université de Damas qui ont finalement ouvert le cercle qu’ils avaient formé autour de moi, mais seulement après que j’eus prononcé un serment d’allégeance à Ben Laden – c’est la seule fois où j’ai parlé arabe- . J’ai assumé le risque. En Iran, j’ai été repéré deux fois par la police religieuse et il aurait pu m’en cuire vu les contacts pourtant interdits que j’ai eus avec des ingénieurs et étudiants iraniens.

Voici , pour les exaltés et potentiels ascenseurs d’Everest qui ne peuvent se retenir, la consigne canadienne pour le Népal.

Voici des consignes que j’ai choisi d’ignorer mais en assumant pleinement les conséquences.  »

YÉMEN – ÉVITEZ TOUT VOYAGE

Affaires étrangères, Commerce et Développement Canada recommande d’éviter tout voyage au Yémen, étant donné que les conditions de sécurité se sont détériorées considérablement et que les étrangers courent des risques extrêmes. Il n’est plus possible de quitter le pays par des moyens commerciaux. Si vous demeurez au Yémen, trouvez un abri sauf et restez-y, sauf si vous pouvez trouver un moyen sécuritaire de quitter le pays. La capacité du gouvernement du Canada à offrir de l’assistance consulaire au Yémen est extrêmement limitée. Voir Sécurité pour plus de renseignements.

LIBYE – ÉVITEZ TOUT VOYAGE

Affaires étrangères, Commerce et Développement Canada recommande d’éviter tout voyage en Libye en raison de l’insécurité persistante dans l’ensemble du pays : un conflit armé y fait rage depuis longtemps, il y a un risque élevé d’attentats terroristes, la situation politique est imprévisible et le taux de criminalité élevé. Si vous vous trouvez actuellement en Libye, vous devriez quitter ce pays dès maintenant par le moyen le plus sûr.

La capacité du gouvernement du Canada à fournir des services consulaires aux citoyens canadiens qui se trouvent en Libye est extrêmement limitée. L’ambassade du Canada en Libye, à Tripoli, a suspendu ses activités jusqu’à nouvel ordre. Les représentants canadiens ont quitté le pays. Les Canadiens qui se trouvent en Libye devraient communiquer avec l’ambassade du Canada en Tunisie, à Tunis, ou avec le Centre de surveillance et d’intervention d’urgence à Ottawa pour obtenir une assistance consulaire d’urgence. Il est vivement conseillé aux Canadiens de s’inscrire auprès du service d’Inscription des Canadiens à l’étranger.

Les Canadiens qui se rendent en Libye ou qui y séjournent malgré cet avertissement doivent s’assurer que leurs documents de voyage sont en règle, limiter leurs déplacements et se tenir au courant des dernières nouvelles. Des incidents violents peuvent se produire soudainement, et l’on court de grands risques de se trouver au mauvais endroit au mauvais moment. Faites preuve d’une extrême prudence, ayez un plan d’urgence et soyez constamment sur vos gardes.

Faudra-il des panneaux de rappel à ce fameux « camp de base » à l’adresse des Canadiens «  Grimpez à vos risques et périls » après la mise en garde ignorée par plusieurs et pourtant claire pour plusieurs pays à la situation politique ou géologique instable?

Les Québécois , contrairement au reste de la francophonie, ont l’habitude de regrouper des expressions qu’ils ne savent pas utiliser comme « ça m’interpelle, ça me gêne, ça m’attriste, ça me chagrine, ça me touche, ça me dérange, ça m’émeut , ça me peine etc » par une seule expression passe-partout, « ça vient m’charcher! »

Le sort de ces pauvres Népalais me chagrine, mais ne reprochons pas au Canada ne ne pas aller « charcher » ces aventuriers téméraires qui n’ont même pas pris le soin de lire le mode d’emploi du bourbier dans lequel ils se sont volontairement enlisés.


Le blogue de Reynald Du Berger Climat, science et société 

100 reasons why climate change is natural

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

By CHARLOTTE MEREDITH
00:00, Tue, Nov 20, 2012


1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.


After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics.  Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers. 

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.  Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82)  Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors. 

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”


Yannick Gagné
Libre@penseur
22 avril 2015

La fable de Labeaume...

Une Québec vit un Montréal,
qui lui sembla de belle taille.

Elle qui n’était pas grosse en tout comme un œuf, envieuse s’étend, et s’enfle et se travaille, pour égaler l’animal en grosseur;

Disant : Regardez bien, ma sœur, est-ce assez ? dites-moi ? n’y suis-je point encore ? Nenni.

M’y voici donc ? Point du tout.

M’y voilà ? Vous n’en approchez point.

La chétive pécore s’enfla si bien qu’elle creva.

Le monde est plein de gens qui ne sont pas plus sages :
Tout Bourgeois veut bâtir comme les grands Seigneurs;
Tout petit Prince a des Ambassadeurs;
Tout Marquis veut avoir des Pages.

Yannick Gagné
Libre@penseur
29 janvier 2015