“Climate Change is Political Propaganda”

One of the original founders of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore, has announced that climate change is “pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” and that in reality, the world’s “deserts are greening from rising CO2.”

Dr. Moore, who was also the second president of Greenpeace, and whose high profile  environmental activist career includes being on board the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed and sunk by the French government in New Zealand, made his astonishing assertion at a climate summit held in Austin, Texas this week.

The summit, organized by the pro-free market Texas Public Policy Foundation, was also addressed by Dr. Will Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University and former director of the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and  Dr. Richard Lindzen, former Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.” He said that the “most important thing to keep in mind is—when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc.—that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.”

He also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over the past 50 years was due to mankind. “People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.

“We are speaking of small changes—0.25 Celsius would be about 51 percent of the recent warming, and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity—meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained.

“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted. “When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record, what are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.

“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he said.

“The UN IPCC wisely avoided making the claim that 51 percent of a small change in temperature constitutes a problem. They left this to the politicians and anyone who took the bait,” he said.

Lindzen noted that National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Ralph Cicerone has even admitted that there is no evidence for catastrophic claims of manmade global warming.

Dr. Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense” and on “computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path. Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued.

“To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.

“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained.

Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.”

“More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added.

Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.”

“If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said.

* In 1989, the United Nations predicted that “entire nations would be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels by the year 2000” as a result of “climate change.”

San Jose Mercury News (CA) — June 30, 1989 — 3F General News


A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the UN Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

* In 2007, the chief of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, said, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

On Jan. 19, 2009, James Hansen, ‘climate expert’ who was formerly head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, firmly declared that President Obama “has only four years to save the Earth.”

In 2014, satellite images showed that the Arctic ice cap was thicker than ever, and covered 1.7 million square kilometers more than two years previously, in spite of infamous alarmist Al Gore’s 2007 prediction it would be ice-free by that year.

While there is some evidence for environmental damage as a result of industrialization, it is clear that the hysteria over “climate change” has taken on a distinctly political tinge—and an anti-Western one at that.

Recommended For You


  1. Photosynthesis functions as well at 14 C or 57.2F as it does at 53 C or 126 F and photosynthesis is more efficient at all temperatures between. (See Doc Brown's graph referenced below as well as many similar graphs.)

    The present average atmospheric temperature of earth is approximately 14C or 57.2F and the current atmospheric oxygen content is 21%. 100 million years ago, the average atmospheric temperature of earth was approximately 25C or 77F and the atmospheric oxygen content was 31% at that time. Ergo, at an 11C higher temperature, Earth had 10% more oxygen produced by more abundant foliage.

    "The Chemical Equation of Photosynthesis"
    "What is the average global temperature now? | UCAR"
    “Climate and the Carboniferous Period”, Plant Fossils of West Virginia

    Google Images:
    PhotosynthesisGraph3.gif Doc Brown

  2. Plant water usage is more efficient at higher CO2 levels due to lower transpiration and indicated by fewer stomata.

    Photosynthesis at 20C or 68F is about the same as it is at 52C or 125.6F and photosynthesis is more efficient at all temperatures between – at all probable global temperatures above the present 14C.

    “Evolution of C4 plants: a new hypothesis for an interaction of CO2 and water relations mediated by plant hydraulics”, Colin P. Osborne, 2012
    look at the Graphs in Fugure 6

    Google Image:

  3. Hurricanes and cyclones have not become more energetic or more frequent.
    Google Image:
    "Global Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy", 2016
    “Global Hurricane Frequency”, 2016

  4. Google Image
    carboniferous period temperature CO2 graph

    Those Carboniferous graphs show huge amounts of CO2 with respect to the present without thermal-runaway and with very long term declining temperatures contrary to James Hansen’s thermal-runaway scare quote or the similar scare quote from Stephen Hawking.

    Scare Quotes:
    “If we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there’s a substantial chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”, James Hansen, 2009, Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, 1981 to 2013
    “The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can.”, Stephen Hawking, August 16. 2006

  5. And the empiric evidence is that nuclear powered submarines do actually exist Rev, along with their lethal arsenal. I served aboard a British hunter/killer. Nuclear powered, conventional weapons. The Bombers carried Polaris at the time.

  6. On a different note, a friend of my failed an undergraduate class for not agreeing to Climate Change haha. I had a good laugh about it, but in retrospect it just shows how ridiculous the whole system is.

  7. I'm irritated by your comment, presumably about Sir John Mason, who is or was among other things a cloud physicist, and involved with the Met Office computer models of the earth's climate. I expect the models were programmed in good faith (with computers now about 30 years old). However the computer models didn't even take account of cloud formation — they just assumed the amount of cloud was fixed. The distance between the points on the earth's surface was hundreds of miles; I forget the figure, but if you listen to his talk (and the transcript) you'll get a feeling for how the absurd scam got started.
    On the nuke issue, of course I'm perfectly happy to debate it, but this site happens not to accept such debate.

  8. The nuclear issue is a question of evidence. It's nothing to do with whether someone can or can't 'entertain' the idea.

  9. Evidence? What evidence?
    I hear a lot of propaganda from the BBC about bad things that are gonna happen at some unspecified future time. They only interview pro-warming activists to push their climate change hysteria. And this from a national broadcaster which is supposed to be scrupulously unbiased.
    But where is the evidence? We are some 20 years down the line since this mania began. Polar ice is still abundant and the seas have not drowned the flat fenland of Eastern England yet. We do have an unusually warm winter so far (usually scaping ice off the car windows in December) but that will change. We have a temperate climate here and extreme weather is very rare. Despite all the predictions of climate doom I havn't been surprised by any lasting weather events at all over the last 20 years.
    If we have been ignoring the advice of climate change gurus and have just carried on burning fossil fuels and chucking untold amounts of that lethal gas CarbonDioxide into the atmosphere for the LAST 20 YEARS then why are we still waiting for Armageddon?? It should have arrived by now. Tell me John, why are we still waiting?
    Answer: because it will never happen. The real catastrophe will happen when coal fired power stations are bulldozed and your precious wind farms and solar arrays stop working (no sun, no wind). Better crank up those nuclear stations and build more – or are you against those too?
    It seems to me you are dealing with a theoretical doomsday scenario by creating a real doomsday to take its place. Rather than debating when the effects of warming will arrive, I suggest you concentrate on predicting when the lights will go out – since that will be much much sooner.

  10. As before you offer nothing to the debate in the way of factual evidence, just hyperbole.
    I'm not angry, Jethro, just saddened at the level of stupidity that some people show when it comes to scientific debate. You keep believing in things that make you feel good and I'll stick with empirical evidence.

  11. ".. really am at a loss to [understand?] how you and all the other people on this thread can type so much nonsence.."
    So now I understand why you get so angry, John. A voice in your head is telling you that every contributor here is mentally unstable except you. Interesting. Judging by the time you must put into each reply (hours?) I guess you don't get out very much. I understand the frustration you must feel because people are laughing at all those failed prophesies. Be assured that when the renewables fail to meet the demand and the lights, heating, TV, computer and everything else you plug in stop working, those people won't be laughing any more. They will want to know who is responsible as they shiver by candlelight. Without power, TV, radio and even cell phones will go offline, so information and communication will suddenly cease to be at the touch of a button. Street lights and traffic signals will go out. There will be accidents, a crime spree and general panic among the populace. No point in trying to make it into work because industry and commerce will be at a standstill too.
    When all this comes to pass in your low-carbon world, nobody will want to hear about "Global warming". As they gather around fossil fuel fires to keep warm, the irony of their situation will not escape them.
    You might feel moved to explain to people that their sacrifice will ultimately save the planet, but I doubt they would see it that way. Far better for you to stay indoors with your doors and windows bolted. Turn on the gas ring or light a nice coal fire and pretend you've never heard of climate change.

  12. Jethro, as I said to another commenter earlier in the thread – as a nationalist I'm sure we would be in agreement on most things but when it comes to our planet's Climate though I'm afraid most of my fellow nationalists take temporary leave of their senses.
    You would think it would be reletively easy to show somebody how wrong they are about something but when they refuse point blank to look at any of the evidence you post then there is not a lot you can do about it.
    Thankfully, I have turned around quite a few respected nationalists in the UK regarding Climate Change and they now understand how they were conned in to believing it was some kind of giant hoax. This only appears to be succesful in person though where they can't just ignore the evidence I provide or the questions I pose to them. Eventually they give up when they realise they are on a hiding to nothing.
    It saddens me how modern nationalists have turned their backs on science. There was a certain German several decades ago who led the world on science and if he could see the garbage that nationalists are coming out without today regarding the very environment we inhabit then I thinbk he would be extremeley disappointed in all of you.

  13. Rosina, I really am at a loss to how you and all the other people on this thread can type so much nonsense knowing full well it is going to be read by hundreds, if not thousands of people. I think you all just make it up as you go along or just type stuff that makes you 'feel' good. How could I conclude any different when every comment is full of of unsubstantiated nonsense?
    Like Rerevisionist, you have singled out 1 man who says something you happen to agree with and are now promoting him as an authority, why? I really need to spend more time studying the human mind and how easily it is fooled, I think.
    John L Casey….. ROFL! …. "You can see the punch line coming, can't you? Yup, turns out that even people who claim that global warming isn't happening think that John L. Casey, the director and sole named employee of the SSRC, is a "scam artist trying to get his hands in your pocket" who lacks "any credibility in climate research." Indeed, the SSRC's website acknowledges that Casey lacks both education and experience with climate science."

    After some brief research it's clear that this Casey chap is an out and out fraud. I'm just wondering if you actually paid money for his book?


  14. Well done for sucking up the Koch brothers and Exxon mobiles propaganda. I can see from your comment that you haven't looked at any of the links I've provided and anyone who can just rattle off a sentence like "More CO2 means more plants will grow and better crops" without giving what he's just said any thought is clearly someone not worth debating.

    I'll entertain you on your CO2 Faux Pas though for the entertainment of anyone reading this comment thread who actually knows what they are talking about…

    What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?

    1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth.

    On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.

    2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

    3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2. Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

    4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

    5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects.

    6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

    In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

    Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.

    Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.


  15. Agree with that 100%, Rosina. AGW is a religion with the IPCC its tabernacle. Here in Europe we have a much more pressing problem called the European Union. Its one aim is to remove democratic government from every nation in Europe so that we all become enslaved under one Orwellian totalitarian regime. Poorer nations like Ireland and Greece are drawn into the Euro like gamblers to Las Vegas. Borrowing becomes cheaper than ever and the people soon become addicted to borrowing and spending. Before too long the economy collapses and the addicts are now totally dependent on handouts from – guess who? – the European Union, just to survive. Politicians have betrayed our (UK) people over decades by signing treaties that give away our birthright and the right to determine our own future. There is widespread distrust among the people concerning the coming referendum. Our political system is so outdated and morally corrupt that rigging the vote seems a distinct possibility.
    Fortunately, the EU is almost certainly doomed. Its open borders policy is now killing it like a deadly virus and it cannot reverse it.
    One world-renowned economist predicts disintigration of the EU within the next decade.
    Am I getting off the point here? Absolutely. The real point is that AGW will become a sideshow in comparison to the mayhem that we will have to deal with as the EU lashes out ever more vindictively and finally expires. Nation states will close their borders across Europe and then re-establish rigid border controls.
    When all this comes to pass, no-one will give a damn about polar ice or a 2degree increase in global temps. The prophets of doom will melt away and global weather patterns will.. well, go on just as before – unchanged by man. Such a pity we cannot reclaim the billions of taxpayer's dollars/pounds/euros which have been misappropriated in pursuance of this madness.

  16. I am no scientist but. This is the biggest scam ever.
    The earth has approx. 4.5 billion years and in that time there were hot ages and ice ages but here was NO man on the earth until about a a million or so years ago. So how do these "science is settled" persons explain that? They cannot. This is the way it was intended and you cannot change that fact. Geologic study shows the different stratus of the earth and one can see the different climate ages. Anyone know the story of king Canute.? He proved to his sycophants that he had no magic touch to order the seas. So how can Gore the bore do so?
    How come he flies around the world in his jet spewing carbon but we must tighten our belts? How come his 40 room mansion uses $30,000 of electricity? How come he bought a house right on the Pacific if the seas will rise and drown it? Don,t make me laugh.
    Another scam for more money out of our pockets and into these politicians who are probably laughing up their sleeves at the joke. No joke for us. We get poorer and poorer and that is the aim.
    Read the best book on this subject by John Casey a real scientist "Dark Winter". A very enlightening read. Many observations over 1000s of years not computer models. Some from known scientists. And extremely well researched. When the new ice age comes, hope you all freeze who believe that CO2 is bad. If so, just stop breathing.

  17. The ludicrous claims about Armageddon made over the last 20 years have all proved completely false. Polar ice is increasing and satellite imagery clearly indicates most CO2 is NOT man-made at all but natural. The expected concentrations of CO2 over the industrialized nations were simply not there, in fact there was far more detected in the southern hemisphere!
    CO2 is an essential gas, not a killer as you would have us believe. More CO2 means more plants will grow and better crops. Finally, the link between increased atmospheric CO2 and increased global temp has never been proven – only faked.
    Are you listening, John?
    I thought not.

  18. I'm not concerned with spending time on Murray. Let me just repeat that Mason's talk was very good and very thorough. And never answered. Many serious scientists have little idea about the corruption of science by money interest groups (guess who).
    . . . There's the problem that as yet there are no penalties for lying: the holohoax, 9/11, the 'Liberty', fake hate crimes, fake protests etc etc are unpenalised.
    . . . Murray mentions (without understanding) other issues; my own policy is to keep to myself, since there are so many issues out there it's imho best to specialise. I don't e.g. even attempt to persuade family law activists that there's a jewish link with anti-white family laws, even though it's obvious enough.
    Sir John Mason at Kew, explaining how computer models then were completely inadequate to deal with climate modelling of the earth.

  19. @stylo

    Yet again you have refused to answer my points and have failed to read the links I provided.
    I know you haven't looked at the evidence as you're using the worn out 'old chestnuts' which prove you don't know what you're talking about.
    You said: " I don’t deny that the Earth’s temperatures vary. They always have, since time immemorial. Canada used to be covered with ice. Then “global warming” happened to melt the ice and, behold, there was Canada! No SUVs or industrialisation because that was millions of years ago"
    Oh Dear! If that's what you really think then why are you even here? Let me explain –
    Climate Myth: Climate's changed before
    Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)
    Climate Reality:
    Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.
    Abrupt vs slow change.
    Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.
    But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.
    Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.
    So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

    For a more detailed explanation see this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
    I'm not going to bother replying to your other points as you obviously have zero knowledge on the subject of the Earth's Climate and just want to keep throwing worn-out old chestnuts in to the debate.

  20. Never mind my opinion. Focus on those opinions in the book "A Disgrace To The Profession".

    As mentioned, these are scientists talking. So much for your nonsensical comment about "anti science." You see, the problem with you warmist-alarmist religionists/ideologues is that you are very gullible. You need to resort to labels such as "deniers". What such as Holocaust deniers? Galileo was vilified and threatened with imprisonment for speaking against the prevailing "settled science" of his day i.e. that the Sun revolved around the Earth. What is the easiest way to provoke an AGW alarmist? Answer; disagree with him/her! As a "denier" I don't have the belief system. You do. I don't believe, remember? I'm a "denier". But I don't need to resort to labels because I have a healthy intellectual scepticism when it comes to political, neo-religionist global ideologies like AGW. I refer you back to the book, "A Disgrace To The Profession, Volume 1" which contains essays all by scientists discrediting "Dr Fraudpants" and his fraudulent claim to be a Nobel Prize winner. This is typical of warmist-alarmists. They make fraudulent claims. I don't deny that the Earth's temperatures vary. They always have, since time immemorial. Canada used to be covered with ice. Then "global warming" happened to melt the ice and, behold, there was Canada! No SUVs or industrialisation because that was millions of years ago. Sound science is based upon skepticism not religion or ideology which is the alarmist position. Alarmists have as valid a belief system as that which motivated the 17th Century Tulip mania. It is a fanaticism, an ideology as implacable as the Soviet Communist regime. They referred to "deniers" as "dissidents". They executed those who were unknown to the wider world. But they expelled those who were too internationally high-profile such as Solzhenitsyn who, because of their courage to consistently speak out against the prevailing orthodoxy, were thus an embarrassment because of the coherence of their views. AGW alarmists are essentially narcissists, need-to-believers, who having rejected theological religion, have embraced, pseudo-science instead.

  21. Your comment is typical of the anti-science brigade. Firstly, there has been NO Pause! I don't know how many ways I could type that and I guess it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't believe it anyway. The so called pause is another piece of propaganda put out by the likes of Mark Moran. There is a reason they quote from 1998 when referring to the 'pause' due to it being an exceptionally hot year due to el nino. This gave them the chance to say it wasn't getting warmer over the following years. This of course has been blown out of the water now and if you look at a graph for the last 150 years you can clearly see the temperature has risen continually. What those who preach about a 'pause' describe is the equivalent of a staircase, they pick a particular stair, draw a graph and then show it to the masses with a 'look at this', there's a pause. It's junk science and disengenous.
    I did watch the link you posted as I always look at every side to reach a conclusion. I guess you haven't done the same though, have you? If you have, could you explain which areas/articles on Skeptical Science are wrong, and why? Also, If you'd taken the time to watch the Potholer54 demolition of the shill 'Lord' (who isn't a 'Lord') Christopher Monckton video then I would be very interested in your opinion of Monckton after he was thoroughly exposed for the charlaton he is.
    I'd also like to know if you have seen the new documentary called 'Merchants of Doubt' which catalogues how the oil companies have spread mis-information about the science of Global Warming. To date, they have spent £31 million dollars mis-informing the public about the science (which you have clearly swallowed) and that figure is all that we know about; no doubt it runs a lot higher than that.
    I have found that it really doesn't matter how much evidence you throw at a denier (I use that term as 'Skeptic' isn't appropiate due to the fact a true Skeptic always studies every angle to reach his conclusion and those who think AGW is some kind of fraud have never looked at the science.) You could prove me wrong on that by answering the points I've just raised in regards to Monckton, Skeptical Science and Merchants of Doubt.
    I'll leave you with an GIF from Skeptical Science to illustrate my point about how laughable the 'pause' is.

  22. "The debate is about the scientific evidence and you post a link to Sen Cruz using his lawyer skills to give the impression that he’s actually right. Cruz is a politician, not a scientist. Who cares what his ‘opinion’ is on the science."

    You've evaded the main point of my providing the Youtube link. Senator Cruz asked a perfectly simple question which anyone familiar with basic scientific principles should have been able to answer directly and unequivocally. Instead the questionee refused to do so and in his desperation to remain "on-message" merely sounded like a stuck vinyl record. He didn't even understand his own propaganda, having to consult over what the term "the pause" refers to and even then got it wrong. Hilarious.

    Michael Mann's alleged fraudulance has not been "thoroughly debunked". This is the same person who originally claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner. No wonder he acquired the sobriquet "Dr Fraudpants."

    Notice, scientists writing, and volume 2 is on the way.

  23. Rev,
    I'm sorry, but your opening statement is just plain wrong. I must say that I find you hard to take seriously anyway as I believe you're the guy that argues that Nuclear power and bombs don't exist? Sorry, but I can't entertain that.

  24. What Al Gore says about the Climate is irrelevant as he's not a Climate Scientist and regarding Michael Mann, he is not a fraud and those accusations have been thoroughly debunked. I'm sure you're not interested in that though as it goes against what you want to believe.
    I watched that YouTube video and it kind of confirms that you can't debate with people who are not on the same page. The debate is about the scientific evidence and you post a link to Sen Cruz using his lawyer skills to give the impression that he's actually right. Cruz is a politician, not a scientist. Who cares what his 'opinion' is on the science.

  25. You say that you stopped arguing with insane people decades ago, That's some statement! If you re-read your comment you might just see how you've offered nothing to the debate except insults. You've not refuted any of the points I have made, because you can't. Your position is based on nothing except what you would like to be true.
    Women base their worldview on how it makes them feel whereas men are supposed to be logical beings. Have you got something substantial to offer up in the way of 'evidence' to convince me it's a big scam? I think I'm going to be waiting a long time.

  26. It's been known for years that it's just another fraud. About 20 years ago I taped a talk by Sir John Mason at Kew, explaining how computer models then were completely inadequate to deal with climate modelling of the earth.

    A bit hissy, but I recommend Mason's talk as a very thorough and very balanced explanation. They've gone very quiet about computer models, even though the technology has vastly improved.

  27. "Climate scientists no longer discuss whether man made global warming is real or not; they have moved past that now and only look at the effects of it, the rate of change and how bad it’s going to get."

    ALL "climate scientists"? Or is this just you AGW crowd denying that any alternative scientific view exists? Science is always a work in progress. It does not admit of strident all-embracing ideological statements such as "the science is settled." This is obviously mendacious political propaganda invented by the AGW narcissists intended to fund, at tax-payer expense, a useless proselytizing, self-regarding, tub-thumping lifestyle personified by Al Gore and "Dr Fraudpants" himself, Michael E. Mann. http://www.steynonline.com/7316/no-change-at-the-climate-court. For your further entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

    If you believe "the science is settled" you are extremely gullible!

  28. "The science is settled".

    That is where your argument ended I'm afraid. Science is never settled, that is how the universal scientific laws are elucidated and confirmed with reproducible experimentation and provable results. We would never have gone into space, created the jumbo jet or elucidated the periodic table if our forefathers believed this tripe that science can be settled once and for all.

    The left wing media use that oxymoron time and time again to shut down debate as well as banning or censoring anyone who can argue against this fable.

    You are also aligning anyone who doesn't believe the climate change fairytale with major corporations who have a clear agenda. Wrong again, as many of us nationalists / traditionalists also despise the rape of our planet by these self-anointed "kings of the earth".

    The poster below, Ryan, is spot on when he discussed the fact that the climate change lobby attack anyone who resists their baseless rubbish with the same zeal as the holocaust industry. How many times have their pathetic models been proven wrong?

    You need to wake up and realise this is a major scam designed to achieve the one-world government that "they" have been working towards for eons. They are using the environment as the vehicle, and will introduce a new global currency based on the much maligned carbon, an element that is vital to our existence.

    I am perplexed as to how someone who calls themselves a nationalist, can be completely fooled by the same forces that we oppose everyday regarding multikulti, the holocause, etc.

    I totally support shutting down major corporations, especially the world rapers like oil, coal and gas "producers". I believe we could make alternative technology work quite easily especially if people changed their insatiable desire for unnecessary luxuries and this unsustainable way the planet is operating. This does not however validate the screamers and zealots of the CC industry. It is a fraud and should be treated with the utmost suspicion due to the fact it is supported by the controlled media and government puppets alike.

    Most folks I have talked to despise the status quo and the continued rape and subjugation of our planet but we need to understand the underlying reasons behind such a push to rip even more money from people in the name of "science".

  29. Environmental 'scientists' in the west for the last couple of decades has become akin to the holocaust. The UN are even looking into outlawing climate change 'denial'![1] Every Pro-Whites' friend George Soros also pushes the climate change stuff.[2]
    The research grants available to University departments require them to not go against climate change.

    To get a PhD students have to produce work that supports climate change. If they produce work that goes against it then they cannot get their PhD as what they produce is considered wrong.

    The generation of environmental 'scientists' today went through this process. The environmental scientists that speak out against this are ones that became scientists before this became another political issue. If they wanted to reduce this supposed climate change a good thing to do would be allow the population of the high consumption countries to fall. However the same global elite support increasing the population of high consumption countries. It's not cognitive dissonance, it's a scam.

    [1] http://www.activistpost.com/2015/10/secretive-un-legal-conference-wants-to-outlaw-climate-change-denial.html
    [2] http://cleantechnica.com/2009/10/14/george-soros-pledges-11-billion-to-fund-climate-change-initiatives/

  30. This article is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to start. As a nationalist I find it disturbing that so many of my fellow nationalists buy in to this rubbish about global warming being a 'scam' and a 'hoax'. The evidence is clear, the science is settled and the only debate left amongst real climate scientists is the timeline and potential damage we face from warming the planet by releasing billions of tons of 'extra' CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Everytime I see these articles it's always the same suspects parroting this nonsense and this time we have Richard Lindzen http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

    Let me ask you this, what is most likely? Thousands of climate scientists getting together to deliberately falsify their data, participate in some giant 'hoax' and go against the very essense of what being a scientist means, or the fossil fuel giants like ExxonMobil taking a small chunk of their billions of dollars worth of profit (from the extraction of fossil fuels) and using that money to misinform the public through propaganda campaigns and to buy-off politicians and others to discredit the science? I think the answer to that is clear and some quick googling will show you that they have been caught funding the climate denial movement for years. In fact we know that ExxonMobil's own scientists told them back in the seventies that the evidence for global warming was clear.

    Corporations like ExxonMobil are well aware of the science and know full well that what they are doing is causing harm to our planet but they choose to ignore it as they would rather carry on making the billions of dollars that they do.

    I have heard every single 'chestnut' from the deniers and each one of their 'claims' is easily debunked. Potholer54 has some excellent videos on YouTube doing just that, in fact he is soley responsible for showing Christopher Monkton to be the charlaton that he is.

    "WHITE WARRIOR" in the comment above 'claims' to be a 'scientist', really? Then you should know full well that there is a big difference between localised weather and global climate. The planet's climate is its personality whereas the weather is our planet's mood.

    For those readers that are interested in learning the truth about C02 and climate from the people that actually study it and not the paid shills in the oil companies pockets then please have a good read of the best climate science website on the internet, 'Skeptical Science', which was set up to put the spurious claims of the deniers to bed. You'll find every argument and 'old chestnut' you've ever come across on there and see them completely debunked.

    As nationalists we should be taking the moral high ground on everything because we are right. It does us no favours when a large amount of us buy into psuedo-scientific nonsense.

    Educate yourselves my fellow nationalists as we should be using this to our advantage. Global capitalism and big corporations are damaging our planet and as nationalists, our policies of 'localism', ending the free movement of people and caring for our environment chimes nicely with the solutions to this problem. Just because the nutty green movement who are really just communists shout the loudest about global warming doesn't make it a hoax. The greens eat food, does that make eating food bad? The greens breath air so should we all stop breathing?



  31. Are the political reasons potentially nothing than an issue to occupy ex communist sympathisers (Green types being overwhelmingly 'Watermelons') as well as another way to guilt trip the predominantly White developed world?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.