By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, William M. Briggs, David R. Legates, Anthony Lupo, Istvan Marko, Dennis Mitchell, & Willie Soon
25 Sep 2016
Some 375 political activists attached to the National Academy of Sciences, supporting the totalitarian view on the climate question, have recently issued an open letter saying we “caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”
In fact, the extent of our influence on climate is not “settled science.” Only 0.3% of twelve thousand papers published in learned journals claimed that recent warming was mostly manmade. The 375 activists are entitled to their opinion, but the scientific community’s peer-reviewed results overwhelmingly fail to endorse their narrow view that recent warming was predominately manmade.
True, we influence climate, by returning to the air some of the carbon dioxide that was there before. But so do termites, by emitting more methane than all the world’s farm animals combined. So do plants, by taking carbon dioxide; storing the carbon in leaves, stems, and trunks; and returning the oxygen to the air. So does the Sun, by supplying nearly all the Earth’s radiant energy. So do volcanoes, by emitting hot rocks that warm the air and ejecta that shade the Earth from the Sun and cause cooling. So do the oceans, by helping to keep the Earth’s temperature within a few degrees either side of the period mean for more than 800,000 years.
“I object to having to pay more for electricity that is produced inefficiently and erratically because some people are worried about the end of the world. In the 1980s, solar energy looked a possible way in the future of protecting our small and diminishing reserves of oil – because even then there were experts telling us that ‘Peak Oil’ had already arrived. It would never have occurred to me that we would be considering it as a source of baseline power. How would we store overnight the energy gained during the day? No one had the answer then, and no one has produced an efficient working model of the answer today. For isolated settlements and properties? Yes. For the grid? No.”
The letter below by Prof. Berkhout was published recently in the largest Dutch daily, de Telegraaf:
In recent years we have seen the strangest things happening to our universities. Professors must be extremely careful about what they teach. If they present scientific results that do not fit the ideology of activist movements, their lives are made difficult and they even run the risk of being excommunicated. Joining the consensus is by far the safest. The Boards of Governors do not protect their professors; on the contrary, they are solidly behind the activists.
The University of Amsterdam believes that every student should become ‘woke’. It is no longer about developing talents, but about making white, heterosexual, serious students feel guilty. After all, their ancestors have blood on their hands and they are the new generation of oppressors. Radboud University in Nijmegen has bowed to climate activism and has just decided that all students must be taught the sustainability narrative. The climate crisis is central to this, whether that is scientifically correct or not, that does not matter in Nijmegen. (more…)
Although
Greenpeace relies heavily on marketing, advertising, and free market
principles, they promote socialist and anti-capitalist ideals in their
messaging.
Greenpeace
have successfully created a public perception that they are fighting to
protect humanity, nature and the environment from the evils of corrupt
industries and vested interests. This perception is so popular and
wide-spread that whenever Greenpeace speaks out on an issue it is
automatically assumed to be true, and anybody who questions Greenpeace’s
claims is assumed to be corrupt. However, as we will discuss in this
report, the reality is almost exactly the opposite…
We are confident that all of our readers have read or heard for a number of years that 97% of all scientists believe that mankind has played a role in changing the earth’s climate. While it should have been recognized long ago as an urban myth, one of those stories that hang around regardless of a lack of any supporting facts. Rarely a day goes that a global warming alarmists do not use it to promote their cause of enlarging government and reducing personal freedom through the promotion of fear about our future.
Many articles have been written to refute this claim but they all dig into the statistical weeds. Common sense alone should set you straight. If the reader wishes he or she read could read the original paper by Naomi Oreskes that started it all in Science Magazine in December of 2004. Be aware you might die laughing. (more…)
The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).
A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.
Some of the more important articles in this issue are: (more…)
Before Constantine, Romans worshipped 12 main gods including Apollo (the Sun), Diana (the Moon), Flora (the plants), Uranus (the sky), Ceres (the crops), Gaia (the Earth) and of course Bacchus (wine), Venus (love) and Mars (war). Some of these gods demanded tribute and sacrifice.
Christianity, the worship of one forgiving God, slowly absorbed or eliminated its pagan rivals. The Popes in Rome came to lead a Catholic empire of Christians. In modern times, the old Greek/Roman goddess, Gaia, has been resurrected by the world green movement. (more…)
The 97% Scientific Consensus that CO2 is
dangerously warming the planet is based on a
postal survey response sample of over 10,000
which was selectively whittled down to just 77
on the basis of the responses to just two
questions, neither of which even mentioned the
supposed villain Carbon-dioxide.
Morano: “When you go and plug in your electric car and you pat yourself on the back for being nice and green, you’re powering that battery, you’re recharging that battery with fossil fuels. That’s the first thing, and that doesn’t even bring into how they put the batteries together.
“All the rare earth mining is giving China the world monopoly on this. China is buying up Africa. They’re going in places like Congo, where 70% of the world’s cobalt. They are using underage labor. They’re using Uyghur slaves in China. They are the ones we have to turn to and they are making us more reliant on them to dig up the Earth without our higher environmental standards. We’re outsourcing our pollution to get electric cars that run and recharge on fossil fuels. It makes no environmental sense in that regard.”
RSS
