the March 29 press conference where Al Gore and a group of state attorneys general vowed to push ahead on potentially prosecuting "corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change," a surprising news situation developed where Wall Street Journal reporters announced they had viewed a leaked email agenda printout detailing how a small group of environmentalists were scheming "to establish in public's mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution." Two days later, the Washington Free Beacon showed the printout, and other news outlets later referred to it and the environmentalist names within it, most prominently environmentalist lawyer Matt Pawa.Barely two weeks after
President Barack Obama will meet with world leaders Friday to sign the Paris Climate Agreement, but the plan won’t slow global warming according to a climate scientist who spoke to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Obama will promise the world Friday that America will cut carbon dioxide (CO2) by 26 to 28 percent by the year 2025, even though the Supreme Court prevented Obama’s Clean Power Plan from being implemented in February.
To make earth cleaner, greener and safer, which energy sources should humanity rely on? Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress explains how modern societies have cleaned up our water, air and streets using the very energy sources you may not have expected--oil, coal and natural gas.
There seems to be a sentiment that only "scientists" can credibly weigh-in on the subject of global warming. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) suggested as much last week, during a fiery Senate committee exchange with Alex Epstein, author of ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.’ After Epstein had explained his rationale for the continued use of fossil fuels, Sen. Boxer belligerently asked, “Are you a scientist?”
The presumption, of course, is that Epstein’s views should simply be minimized if he’s not a practicing “scientist.” Of course, Sen. Boxer isn’t a scientist either. Even worse, we can infer that she would prefer to merely acquiesce to “scientific opinion.” But since untold numbers of scientists have publicly rejected the theory of man-made global warming (including ten of thousands in ‘The Petition Project’ alone), Boxer has clearly aligned herself with only one slice of the scientific community.
A new study published in the Nature this week is drawing praise and criticism from both sides of the global warming divide. It says that the reason global warning is ranked as such a non-issue by most people in the U.S. is because it has made the weather "more pleasant" for them. The study is based on the migratory patterns of people that indicates people prefer counties that are warm and non-humid over areas that are freezing and always snowing.
Australia's Attorney-General and Liberal Senator George Brandis said earlier this week he's not "at all" convinced the science of global warming is settled. Speaking to Parliament, the senior Turnbull government minister noted "there were a number of views about the cause of climate change," which shows the "deep climate skepticism in the coalition [party]." Australia's Labor party immediately attacked Mr. Brandis' remarks and said they were "breathtaking." The Labor party is a democratic socialist party, billing itself as a "party of active government."
Climate Hustle is making news everywhere!
Last Thursday, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing room of the U.S. House was the prestigious venue for the Capitol Hill premiere of Climate Hustle, and the room was packed. "It is my hope that films like Climate Hustle can help unmask some of the bias and give the American people the facts," Committee Chairman Lamar Smith asserted.
sign the global climate accord at the United Nations, NOAA declared March the warmest month on record. This Friday, which is also Earth Day, about 150 countries will officially ink the climate agreement reached in Paris last December. While the climate accord is not a legally binding treaty, it does put the United States on a path toward slashing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.Just days before President Obama is scheduled to
Dr Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, says these efforts are nothing more than political pomp and "expensive hot air" and won't "significantly avert global warming." He calculates it will end up being the "costliest climate change treaty" in history. And the next U.S. president can't withdraw until 2019, something Mr. Obama is counting on.
Twenty-eight Republican senators have sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry demanding he follow the law and prohibit funding for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The law in question is the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which bars funding of “any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.” On March 17th of this year, the UNFCCC granted full membership to the nonexistent state of Palestine.
This Friday, world leaders and their entourages will disembark from carbon-spewing jets in New York to sign the world’s costliest climate change treaty. Lit by the flashbulbs of the world’s press and warmed by their sense of accomplishment, these politicians will pat each other on the back and declare a job well done.
The reality is that the so-called “Paris Treaty” is a hugely expensive way of doing very little.
One of Antarctica’s major glaciers, Nansen, is rapidly melting supposedly due to man-made global warming, at least according to a just released article by Tech Times (see here), but geologic forces are the most likely culprit. Scientific support for the article was taken from a research study by the European Space Agency (ESA), an organization that has for many years been monitoring changes in the Nansen Glacier utilizing satellite images.
These satellite images clearly document the fracturing and eventual breakup of a large terminal segment of the Nansen Glacier. Tech Times contends that the ESA study and associated satellite images are “smoking gun” evidence that man-made global warming is destroying our planet, specifically in this case melting Antarctic glaciers. Taken at face value this appears very plausible because the article is based on research by a trusted space agency that almost certainly followed sound research procedures and protocols while interpreting reliable satellite data.
Exxon as a climate heretic. Its sin? Saying impeccably true things about climate science: The range of uncertainty is high. Climate models are not the climate, and show themselves to be unreliable guides to future warming. There is a cost-benefit test that policy must pass, and it doesn’t.Green activists, some masquerading as attorneys general of New York and California, want to prosecute
The AG case is a spinoff of “investigative” journalism by the Los Angeles Times and Inside Climate News, which we now learn was directly underwritten by climate activists at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefeller Family Fund.