Ignore the heatwave hysteria. The Edwardians had it just as bad - "Climate activists seem to think that the heatwave was like nothing this country has ever seen before. But this isn’t entirely true. In the summer of 1911 – long before cars filled the roads and planes filled the skies – Britain endured a heatwave that was only slightly less hot than this week’s, with temperatures reaching 98.1F (36.7C). The main difference is that it lasted far longer. Rather than two days, it lasted two months."
Britain’s water shortages have nothing to do with climate change - "After the lowest rainfall in July since 1911, the UK is facing an unusually dry summer. Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects in the media, aided by the Met Office and the Environment Agency, have talked up this weather event as a ‘drought’ of truly Biblical proportions. In Britain, the drought has now replaced July’s heatwave as the focus of climate scaremongering... Predictably, the blame for water shortages is being heaped on the alleged profligacy of ordinary households and their unnecessary use of garden sprinklers. And the government and the big water companies are more than happy to pass the buck. First to announce a ban was Southern Water, whose roughly one million household customers will not be allowed to attach hosepipes to their taps this summer... Flouting Southern Water’s restrictions can result in fines of up to £1,000. This could be for anything from watering your garden with a hosepipe to using a hosepipe to clean your car, your patio or your house... Thames Water also announced plans to criminalise households who engage in ‘sewer abuse’. People who pour or flush wet-wipes, fat, oil and grease down their drains could find themselves facing a search warrant and a two-year term in prison. Water companies have essentially arrogated themselves the right to be police, judge and jury – to impose ‘fines’ on errant customers, as if they were the state. As well as blaming the consumer, the water companies are quick to blame climate change... As Future Cities Project director Austin Williams has pointed out, the Environment Agency itself, in announcing the National Drought Group, admitted that ‘nowhere in England is currently considered to be “in drought”’. If there is a water crisis right now, then it is a crisis of water management. The Environment Agency claims that ‘most water companies are maintaining good reservoir storage for summer demand’. But this is questionable. Britain has consistently failed to invest in the new reservoirs we need. Indeed, in June 2021 councillors in Hampshire gave the go-ahead for Portsmouth Water to build a new water reservoir at Havant Thicket, for £120million. But this will be the first new reservoir in the south of England since 1973. It is not just reservoirs that have been neglected, either. In recent years, the regulator, Ofwat, together with the Environment Agency, fined Southern Water shareholders a total of £216million after the company failed to invest properly in wastewater treatment. It was also made to pay £90million for illegally discharging sewage into rivers and the sea, on nearly 7,000 occasions. Just as the water companies are telling ordinary folk that every drop of water counts, water firms are collectively losing 2.4 billion litres of water per day from leaks. Meanwhile, as companies urge their customers to forgo the paddling pool this summer, top executives bask in the heat around their 40-foot swimming pools. No doubt they are protected – by well-watered, high-growing shrubs – from the gaze of Britain’s nosey parkers, whom they otherwise wish to encourage. On top of all this, the water industry is plagued by financial problems... Yet despite all the industry’s problems, the government and the water companies have directed their efforts towards reducing the public’s demand for water, whether through fines, tips or so-called smart meters, which are supposed to make us feel guilty about every drop we use. What we really need is more and better water infrastructure – from reservoirs to sewage works to new and clever piping. Water is a vital resource. And with the right infrastructure, it is literally impossible to run out of it. A sensible programme of investment could solve any of the problems thrown up by low rainfall or other shortages. An advanced industrialised country should not tolerate restrictions on our use of water. But the cosy set-up between a crony-capitalist industry and an environmentalist government means that securing our water supply won’t happen anytime soon."
The main casualty of the ‘climate crisis’? Journalism - "After much self-congratulating hype, Sky News broadcast the first episode of its Daily Climate Show... There is a cascade of presumptions and presuppositions stuffed between the presentation of the problem of climate change and its putative solutions. Omission of these from the broader debate means that we are not mainly being fed ‘news’ but political statements. Broadcasters and ‘journalists’ have decided to be the news, not merely to report it: ‘We can slow it.’ Taking such a position requires avoiding, at all costs, the interrogation of the claim that there is a ‘climate crisis’. But isn’t interrogation exactly what the news media ought to do? Climate change may well be a problem, but to frame it as a ‘crisis’ requires us to forget the political dimensions to the claim. It is not science, but political movements that declared this a ‘crisis’ or ‘emergency’. Some very questionable political movements, at that. And as Andrew Montford pointed out here on spiked last week, the notion of a crisis requires us to ignore the historical context of such claims: the number of people dying from extreme-weather events has actually fallen by 95 per cent since the 1920s. In other words, there is less than zero evidence of a crisis. But activist journalists, possessed of a cause, cannot let the facts get in the way of a campaign. One clue as to the propagandistic intentions driving Sky News’ intervention is the most notable characteristic of the 20-minute show: it was crap. And dull. I don’t just say it as a mean-spirited, long-time climate bore myself. I had to rewind it because I fell asleep. Twice. The show’s cast and crew clearly do not have their hearts and minds invested in this project. As a consequence, it comes across very much as a half-baked execution of a poorly conceived instruction from upstairs – like those reports of tractor production in the USSR exceeding quotas, and produced for similar ends, too. Take, for instance, the story of Greenland’s recent election, which was won by what Jones called a ‘left-wing environmentalist party’. Its victory has cast doubt over plans to develop rare-earth metal mines in the south of Greenland. Jones couldn’t even name the party – Inuit Ataqatigiit – much less give an account of the party’s objections to the mines. It could have made for an interesting discussion about the paradox of green politics being hostile to the development and extraction of the resources that ‘green’ technology is dependent on... The cobbled-together reporting for the sake of having a daily climate show tells us that its content is an afterthought. Green campaigning organisations have longed for the news agenda and the weather forecast to feature daily climate-change stories, to constantly remind the public of the crisis as they see it. And now they have it, they struggle to fill it with anything that looks like ‘news’ rather than vapid political activism. This collapse of journalism into obvious propaganda has been a while in the making, and is entirely predictable. In an article on the Sky Group’s website in January, the company’s executive chairman, Jeremy Darroch, announced that Sky had ‘committed to being net-zero carbon by 2030, and this year we are proud to be a principal partner and media partner of COP26, the UN Climate Change Conference’. It was as though the broadcaster was to be a party to the conference, not just there to point cameras and ask questions... Like other British news broadcasters, the BBC and ITN, it has attached itself to a political cause, and has shown itself unwilling and unable to reflect critically on a domestic and global political agenda. And it has signalled that it would prefer to be a ‘partner’ to government than to offer critical analysis, reporting and journalism to the public."
Fossil fuel protesters charged after tomato soup thrown on Van Gogh's 'Sunflowers' in London gallery - "Two anti-fossil fuel protesters who were filmed throwing tomato soup on Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" in a London gallery Friday have been charged with criminal damage offenses. The two young women from the campaign group Just Stop Oil threw the contents of two tins of Heinz tomato soup over the painting, which, the group said, has an estimated value of $84.2 million. They then glued themselves to the wall beneath the painting at the National Gallery... The three people are all associated with Just Stop Oil, which represents a coalition of groups working together to stop the UK government from committing to new licenses concerning the exploration, development and production of fossil fuels... In July, members of Just Stop Oil glued themselves to a copy of Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper" at the Royal Academy of Art in London. The same month, activists from the group glued themselves to a masterpiece held in the National Gallery, while members of an Italian climate activist organization glued themselves to Botticelli's "Primavera" in Florence... climate activists from Extinction Rebellion were arrested for gluing themselves to Picasso's "Massacre in Korea" at the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne."
Climate protesters throw mashed potatoes on Monet painting - "Activists from the group Last Generation staged the stunt at Museum Barberini in Potsdam, targeting Monet's "Meules" (Haystacks). It's the latest in a series of food-based protests on famous works of art. The activist group Letzter Generation (Last Generation) on Sunday posted a video showing two of its activists throwing a viscous liquid on a Monet painting at a gallery in Potsdam near Berlin. Two young people each threw what they described as mashed potatoes on the "Meules" (Haystacks) painting by Claude Monet, before crouching in front of it with one of them delivering a short statement... Last Generation have also been staging protests targeting roads and highways in Germany, sitting on or gluing themselves to the asphalt. Recently, several of its activists have also attached themselves to various artworks."
Monkey see, monkey do. But there is no political will to crack down on these idiots
Sad: Climate Activists Vandalize A Jackson Pollock But No One Notices | Babylon Bee - "At publishing time, the restoration of Number 31 was scrapped after museum patrons found the vandalism an improvement over the original."
Meme - "Oil Protester Starter Pack
Hair Dye (made with oil)
Glue (made with oil)
Shoes (made with oil)
Graphic T (made with oil)
iPhone (made with oil)"
Architect of Germany’s drive to renewable energy sees need for oil and gas - "A leading architect of Germany’s “Energiewende” push towards wind and solar over coal, oil, gas and nuclear admits that renewable energy alone is not sufficient to maintain reliable supply. The comments by Peter Altmaier, who served as federal minister for economic affairs and energy from 2018 to 2021, come as Germany remains under a natural gas emergency amid Russia’s war in Ukraine. “We have to acknowledge that no country in the world is able to provide 100 per cent of energy demand by renewable energies,” Altmaier told a Calgary luncheon Oct. 12 hosted by the Haskayne School of Business... Wind and solar supplied just 6 per cent of total energy consumed in Germany in 2020, up from just 1 per cent in 2010... wind and solar “are not always providing electricity when it is needed,” Altmaier said. Solar panels and turbines produce more power than Germans require in the summer but less than they need in the winter, he said. Natural gas helps balance this volatility."
The cope will be that this shows that they need even more renewable energy, ignoring the fact that studies show that the more renewable energy you have, the more expensive it is
Facebook - "The environmental justice movement is honestly so stupid They constantly talk about how the world will end if climate change isn't addressed in the next 3 years, but then will 100% oppose any plan to address climate change that also doesn't greatly reduce income inequality. There's nothing wrong with having a problem with income inequality, but if you actually think the world is gonna end in 3 years, that shouldn't be your priority And then they do stuff like disrupt traffic and destroy works of art for no reason, and you wonder why everyone hates them"
Fossil fuel reserves aren’t running out - "Most people wrongly think that the known fossil fuel reserves stayed the same or even decreased, over the last 40 years!... You may have thought we will need to switch to renewable energy sources when fossil fuel reserves run low. History has shown us, though, that as technology has improved, more oil and gas reserves have been found and pumped out of the ground... known oil reserves in 2020 were 254% bigger than in 1980 and that natural gas reserves were 265% bigger in the same period."
Too bad the article goes on about "renewables"
Greta Thunberg: Germany making ′mistake′ by ditching nuclear power for coal - "She acknowledged how sensitive the question was among climate activists, calling the issue "a very infected debate."
Better late than never. But of course she's still promoting the renewables scam
Net Zero: The Dictator’s Dream Come True - "On March 1, 1995, the first United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP 1) began in Berlin. Thus also began Germany’s regrettable journey toward trying to become “carbon-free.” Over the past decade, Germany has been shuttering not just many of its high-emitting coal-fired power plants but also its zero-emission nuclear power plants. That unfathomable decision was based on a plan to replace them with electricity from windmills plastered all over the picturesque German countryside and solar panels bolted to centuries-old rooftops. Germany being often cloudy and frequently calm, however, this predictably proved both prohibitively expensive and completely unreliable. On some of Germany’s coldest, darkest winter days, this enormous and complex infrastructure has produced no power at all. A genuine “net zero.” These innate and insurmountable physical limitations forced Germany to build a vast array of “backup” gas-fired power plants and to become ever-more dependent on Russian natural gas... Even as oil demand increased, the environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement pressured investors to unload their oil industry holdings. Faced with depressed share valuations reflecting their perceived status as a “sunset industry,” plus the increasing reluctance of banks to underwrite new energy projects, the rational course for oil and natural gas producing companies was to pay out large dividends to shareholders generated by the cash flow from existing production rather than reinvest in production growth. Thus, demand grew while supply stagnated. The Ukraine crisis revealed just how narrow the world’s supply margin has become. Regrettably, most of that margin is in Putin’s hands. And now, amidst the wanton attempt to destroy a civilized democracy and a global oil and natural gas shortage, what does our country, which possesses one of the planet’s largest endowments of oil and natural gas, do to help? Basically nothing – because our fanatically anti-fossil fuel government has stymied the construction of both export pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities. The importance of unleashing Canada’s vast oil and gas resources has never been clearer, except to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. During his trip to Latvia in March, a reporter asked whether Canada could help replace Russian oil. Trudeau’s answer illustrated the fanatical depth of his worship at the net-zero altar: “We will be there to support, as the world moves beyond Russian oil and indeed, beyond fossil fuels, to have more renewables in our mix.” And in late August, when Germany’s left-wing Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, virtually begged Canada to increase its natural gas exports as soon as possible by building LNG plants on our east coast, Trudeau’s reply was even more unhinged: he said there was no “business case” for LNG, and that Canada should instead invest in a facility to produce hydrogen in Newfoundland. This is a completely unproven technology with enormous technical, logistical and business risks and a time-frame of at least a decade. In other words, Germany will be getting help from Liberal-run Canada approximately never. These incredible answers came as Ukrainians and their beautiful country were being ravaged by a megalomaniac who threatens civilization with nuclear Armageddon. No doubt Putin is grateful to Trudeau for helping him control international oil markets by having hamstrung Canada’s supply potential. It was Vladimir Lenin, Russia’s first Communist dictator and murderer of Russia’s last Czar, who is widely credited with coining the phrase “useful idiots.”... China pretends to reduce emissions while increasing cheap coal-fired power generation. North American and European politicians worshipping at the net-zero altar meanwhile implement policies mandating costly and unreliable wind and solar power generation, combined with continually rising carbon taxes. As a result, our manufacturers simply cannot compete, leaving us no other choice than to import Chinese-made goods, which helps the Chinese government further strengthen its global political and military standing. As I’ve mentioned before, among those Chinese manufactured goods are the solar panels and wind turbine components that countries like Canada import and install to produce over-priced, intermittent power, even as the Trudeau government prevents us from using the resources we already have in the ground to produce abundant, reliable and inexpensive power. Who could ever have imagined that the West’s attempts to phase out fossil fuels, which supply 84 per cent of global energy, would leave two dictators in control of both global energy security and the supply of manufactured goods?"
Of course climate change is a political issue - "climate activist Greta Thunberg claims she does not ‘want to go into politics’. This raises an obvious question: what exactly does she think she has been engaged in over the past few years?... That she doesn’t see her activism as political is telling. Greta, like many other green ideologues, simply does not see tackling climate change as a political question. Rather, she sees it as an article of faith, a commandment, a supreme cause. Greta sees tackling climate change, and doing so through extreme eco-austerity, as something that we simply must do. Or else. In the face of the alleged eco-apocalypse, little else matters to green ideologues. It is for this reason that climate activists feel justified in stopping emergency vehicles from reaching their destinations, throwing human excrement over memorials to the recently deceased and defacing priceless artwork. They see their cause as all important. So much so that it overrules any objections or debate. When climate-change alarmists get away with pretending that their demands are not political, democracy suffers. Policies promoted in the name of tackling climate change, such as Net Zero, are pushed beyond the realm of debate. They are treated as the preserve of technocrats, experts and ‘well informed’ activists like Thunberg. All this means that green policies can simply be foisted on the public, no matter how profound their effects. It means that fossil fuels are abandoned in favour of more expensive and unreliable alternatives, with virtually no debate. It means that policies that have deepened the energy crisis, and led to higher energy bills and lower living standards, are rarely discussed. Meanwhile, anyone who disputes or questions any element of the agenda is branded a ‘climate denier’ and dismissed. A proper debate about climate policy will have to come eventually. Judging by the popular rejection of Just Stop Oil and other extreme eco-groups, the public appetite for the green agenda is waning. And as the energy crisis bites, public frustration will no doubt grow further."
It's easier to be an activist than a politician, especially when you've captured the elite
Ted Cruz's interview on 'The View' was interrupted by protestors - "The protesters repeatedly yelled, "Vote for climate now!" while Cruz spoke about inflation in the United States... Cruz called the protesters "climate radicals" on Fox News but said it was important for him to reach Americans who do not typically consume media across party lines."
I guess they want even more inflation
Did climate change cause societies to collapse? New research upends the old story. - "If you’re under the impression that climate change drove ancient civilizations to their demise, you probably haven’t heard the full story. The ancient Maya, for example, didn’t vanish when their civilization “collapsed” around the 9th century. Though droughts certainly caused hardship, and cities were abandoned, more than 7 million Maya still live throughout Mexico and Central America. The Maya dealt with dry conditions by developing elaborate irrigation systems, capturing rainwater, and moving to wetter areas — strategies that helped communities survive waves of drought. A report recently published in the journal Nature argues that an obsession with catastrophe has driven much of the research into how societies responded to a shifting climate throughout history. That has resulted in a skewed view of the past that feeds a pessimistic view about our ability to respond to the crisis we face today. “It would be rare that a society as a whole just kind of collapsed in the face of climate change,” said Dagomar Degroot, an environmental historian at Georgetown University and the lead author of the paper... Painting a more complex picture of the past — one that includes stories of resilience in the face of abrupt shifts in the climate — might avoid the fatalism and despair that sets in when many people grasp the scale of the climate crisis. Degroot himself has noticed that his students were beginning to echo so-called “doomist” talking points: “Past societies have crumbled with just a little climate change, Doomists conclude — why will we be any different?” Part of the reason people study the past, Degroot said, “is because we care about the future, and about the present, for that matter.”... many societies responded with flexibility and ingenuity. They detail examples of people moving into different regions, developing trade networks, cooperating with others, altering their diets, and finding new opportunities. When volcanic eruptions fueled the Late Antique Little Ice Age, for example, the Romans took advantage of a rainier Mediterranean. Settlements and market opportunities expanded as people began growing more grains and keeping more grazing animals. They built dams, channels, and pools to help farmers in more arid areas manage water, and, according to the paper, “the benefits were widespread.” During the Little Ice Age in the 17th century, the whaling industry in Norway’s northern islands in the Arctic Ocean actually functioned more effectively during colder years. According to Degroot’s research, whalers coordinated with each other and concentrated their efforts on a limited number of days in spots where whales could be easily caught. In what is now southeastern California, which vacillated between periods of severe drought and increased rain toward the end of the 15th century, Mojave settlements dealt with the unsteady climate by turning to regional trade. They developed new ceramic and basket-weaving techniques, trading for maize, beans, and squash produced by their southern Kwatsáan neighbors. If stories of adaptation are so common, why aren’t they told more often? Maybe that’s because people are more interested in understanding catastrophes and why they happened, rather than ones that … didn’t... an international team of archaeologists, historians, paleoclimatologists, and other experts reviewed 168 studies published on the Little Ice Age in Europe over the past 20 years. While 77 percent of the studies emphasized catastrophe, only 10 percent focused on resilience... Stories of collapse are often told as parables of what happens when humans wreck things (think Noah’s Ark). The public’s interest in environment-driven collapse picked up in 2005 with the publication of Jared Diamond’s book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Some took issue with the interpretations in the book. Take Easter Island, or Rapa Nui, the South Pacific island settled by Polynesians known for its monoliths of heads (actually, the rest of their bodies are underground). The book popularized the idea that the population crashed because the islanders slashed and burned all the trees — a cautionary tale on the perils of destroying the environment. The new story about Rapa Nui is more complicated. In the article “The truth about Easter Island: a sustainable society has been falsely blamed for its own demise,” the archaeologist Catrine Jarman attributed deforestation to the tree-munching rats the Polynesians brought with them, and blames the population crash in the 19th century on slave raids and diseases introduced by European traders. Recent research suggests that indigenous groups have been particularly good at adapting to climate changes, Degroot said, “either because they were able to migrate or because they were able to alter the distribution of resources that they relied upon.”"
Rishi Sunak has every right to skip Cop 27 - "Opposition leaders and green activists are predictably fulminating at Mr Sunak’s rebuff, accusing him of a “failure of leadership” and claiming it demonstrates indifference to global-warming trends. Their anger will doubtless fuel a further round of brainless protests by those who believe they can save the planet by gluing themselves to a motorway. Mr Sunak’s arguments for not attending the summit are perfectly valid. There is to be a critical economic statement on Nov 17. His focus on this underlines its importance to the future of the country and his premiership. Moreover, unlike last year’s climate-change gathering in Glasgow, this one is less important, in that specific targets are not due to be agreed. In fact, the reality of these summits could not stand in greater contrast with the self-righteous rhetoric of climate activists. They leave a deep carbon footprint as thousands of delegates travel from across the globe for what look more like jamborees than serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions. If they are so effective, why are we on the 27th meeting with little progress having been made, according to UN climate forecasters?"
The public just isn’t buying the climate agenda - "the climate agenda’s most powerful advocates have yet to admit to their mistakes, or to understand their failures. Take, for example, the big claims that increasing the energy efficiency of homes could create ‘hundreds of thousands of new green jobs’, create a ‘green industrial revolution’, a ‘green economy’ and ‘lower prices’. These claims accompanied flagship policies championed by the governments of Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Boris Johnson in the wake of the 2008 Climate Change Act, which required CO2 emissions reduction. Yet the armies of green workers never appeared. Green growth turned out to be mere mould. And the green industrial revolution has amounted to nothing more than industries relocating overseas, where energy prices are lower... No doubt, an army of eco-wonks and lobbyists are working on excuses for this succession of policy failures. They will say Brown’s vision of eco-towns and millions of high-tech eco-jobs was undermined by the financial crisis, not rejected by the public at the 2010 General Election. They will say the coalition’s Green Deal failed, not because the public could see that ‘efficiency’ retrofitting is a bad deal, but because the terms of the loan weren’t right. And they will say that the Green Homes Grant has failed merely by virtue of administrative error, not because the public aren’t buying Net Zero. But they would be wrong. Governments have been formed by all three major legacy political parties since the mid-2000s. There is a cross-party consensus in parliament on all things climate-related. There is no debate. Yet in over a decade-and-a-half of policymaking, spanned by four administrations, almost no progress has been made towards what MPs are all agreed is at the heart of climate policymaking: reducing CO2 emissions from homes. Moreover, as I have noted before on spiked, those MPs have failed to check that the public shares emissions-reduction ambitions and broader green ideology. If they did, they would discover that the public have spoken... what it signifies all the same is the sheer inability of an incompetent Westminster to deliver on the most basic of human needs: domestic energy... The public’s willingness to meet the costs and consequences of Net Zero remains untested, and there exists no evidence of support for it. Meanwhile, there exists three policy failures in a row, with each government only building on the failures of the last. Given that politicians seem to be the last to learn from their failures, the next step will likely be a much more aggressive intervention, which will fail all the more catastrophically."
"Flight shame": Not even Europe can ditch planes for rail - "You could just call it “flight shame,” but the Swedish word flygskam — pronounced “fleek scum” — is a lot more fun. It was popularized a few years ago by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. The word describes the feeling of shame she believes that people should feel when considering a plane ride for which a greener alternative exists. Why? Because commercial flights are responsible for 2.5% of the world’s carbon emissions. Thunberg herself took flygskam to extremes when she sailed across the Atlantic in 2019 to visit the U.S... If you choose to broadcast your good deeds to the world, the Swedes have a word for that as well: tågskryta, or “train bragging.”... A critical element in the train-versus-plane consideration is whether your rail alternatives are any good. Yes, trains can be a convenient means to travel from city center to city center, especially in countries and regions where the network is dense and the service is fast. But if you’re going a bit off the beaten track, be prepared to spend a lot more time travelling than you would by plane or car. You know what would really help? A map that shows just how fast and far you can travel by train from your starting point, so you can actually see whether rail is a viable alternative to flight. And that’s exactly what these maps do. The maps come from a site called Chronotrains, which does one thing, and one thing only. It answers the question: How far can you go by train in five hours?... From Kontiomäki, five hours on the train barely gets you across the Swedish border (into Kalix Station, in the very north of the country), and not even to the Finnish capital, Helsinki... Chronotrains was developed over a week this past summer by Benjamin Tran Dinh, a Paris-based software developer. He was inspired by Direkt Bahn Guru, a German site that does something similar: It shows all the cities that are accessible from any given European station without changing trains."
Escape The Echo Chamber - Posts | Facebook - "Even with the uncertainty added by the constant changes to the historical climate record it’s likely the Earth has been warming. It’s more likely than not that humans have contributed to that warming. However, there are serious problems with the debate over global warming and what to do about it. The primary issue is the lack of open and honest debate. Scientists, politicians, and media have been manipulating and stifling open discussion since 1988... In 1981 Hansen predicted that the planet would warm 2.5C by 2000. From then to today, the earth has warmed about 0.65C. In the 1988 hearing Hansen presented a chart with three warning scenarios based on differing levels is CO2 emissions. Actual emissions were more than predicted yet the actual warming was three times less than predicted. This was the first of a long line of overestimations of warming made by advocates. Nearly 20 years later Al Gore predicted that the North polar ice cap would completely melt by 2013. It didn’t. He proclaimed that tornadoes and hurricanes were being more common because of global warming. They weren’t. He said that the oceans would rise 20 feet “in the near future”. They are rising 1/8th inch per year. A couple of years later emails between key climate scientists were leaked which showed efforts to silence critics, discussions on how to hide data from public view, and discussions on how to create the discredited “hockey stick” graph. Through the last several years we’ve seen news channels decide to no longer present critics of climate science, critical papers removed from journals, and even seen the firing of journal editors for allowing climate papers that questioned the current orthodoxy. That’s not science. Without airing the strongest criticism of climate science there is little reason to trust the science. Without debate there has been little coverage of global warming, causing political support to decline. During the last election, ‘climate change’ barely registered in the polls as a voter concern. We need open debate and it needs to be robust. We need an accounting for Why past predictions failed and why the new climate models should be used. What we also need is reporting by the media that reflects the actual science and provides nuance and contrary opinions. Instead we get brain dead articles about how the latest ‘heat dome’ was due to global warming when the experts attribute only a small part of that warming to CO2. Other articles will reference warming as far back as the 1880’s but only the warming since 1950 is influenced by human activity. Finally, the reporting only includes the negatives of warming and not the expected positives — heat related deaths will go up but cold related deaths will drop even more, for example. How can incomplete reporting be trusted?"
