Recently, Joe Biden released a new climate change ad featuring tart cherry farmers in Michigan. The Heartland Institute’s Andy Singer reveals the deception behind Biden’s message.
Read the original article here: http://climaterealism.com/2020/10/bid…
Sir Samuel Brittan, one of the UK’s most eminent journalists and a columnist for the Financial Times for nearly 50 years, has died aged 86. He was a founding member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
In this brilliant 2009 piece for the Spectator he explained why he accepted Nigel Lawson’s invitation to join the GWPF.
I have no expertise on the subject of global warming; nor do I have a strong view about it. But I do know attempted thought control and hostility to free speech when I see it; and I find these unlovely phenomena present among all too many of the enthusiasts for climate action. Words such as ‘denial’ are intentionally brought into the debate and recall those who deny the reality of the Nazi Holocaust.
Since my undergraduate days I have been carrying around a copy of John Stuart Mill’s timeless essay On Liberty, which contains the following stirring sentence: ‘If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.’ Less often cited is another passage: ‘However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may be to admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.’
Too many of the enthusiasts for action on global warming not only implicitly reject these teachings of Mill, they give the impression of never having read or even heard of On Liberty. The atmosphere resembles more one of medieval heresy hunting than free scientific enquiry. To put it more kindly: I am reminded of those dreadful ‘experiments’ in school physics where you could do what you like provided you obtained the result preordained in the textbook.
It is for such reasons that I have accepted the invitation to sit on the Academic Advisory Council of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation. Characteristically, many of those who have rushed to condemn it have not read its remit, which is not to propagate the views of Nigel Lawson, or anyone else, but to subject ‘both the claims of the damage that might be caused by any future warming and the costs and consequences of alternative policies that might be put in place, to dispassionate analysis based on hard evidence and economic rigour’. The trustees and the Academic Advisory Council cover a wide range of political, economic and scientific opinion and are determined to see this remit is observed.
The Economist, which loudly proclaims its adherence to global warming orthodoxy, nevertheless has this to say about the leaked emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit: ‘A more serious concern is that they believe in global warming too much and that their commitment to the cause leads them to tolerate poor scientific practice, to close themselves off from criticism, and to deny reasonable requests for data.’ Such considerations alone show how necessary the new foundation is.
I have been asked what accounts for the intolerant way in which global warming is discussed. I can only make a few guesses. It is always difficult to secure a hearing for a minority view when the main political parties are all officially arranged on the other side. I am reminded of a very different issue: the de facto ban in all the main organs of publication (except The Spectator) of any discussion of the devaluation of sterling for much of the 1960s. Then there are the collective crazes which take over from time to time. These range all the way from superstitious nonsense, such as predicting the date of the end of the world, to the gross exaggeration of remote dangers such as the millennium bug and the elevation of what might be an important real threat into a religious crusade, which sweeps aside all other issues and considerations, as in the case of global warming.
For the record, I have always been an environmentalist since the time when, as an out-of-breath schoolboy cyclist, I discovered that towns shown as separate on the map were linked by miles of hideous ribbon building. More seriously, the dangers from global warming need to be compared to the dangers of other forms of environmental damage, some of which may be enhanced by orthodox climate action, for instance the aggravation of world food shortages by hideous acres of rapeseed fields. Then there is the ridiculous notion of Britain ‘showing an example’. For instance, a department store I use has withdrawn its very handy plastic bags which could be re-used many times in favour of hideous brown paper bags which break open under the slightest load.
My instinctive reaction is to back policies for climate change which might also be justified on other grounds, e.g. the threat to energy supplies, or the environmental damage caused by the detritus of industrial civilisation — symbolised by cemeteries of disused cars; but to hesitate where action can only be justified by controversial projections of the kind with which I am all too familiar from macroeconomics.
There would seem to be two crucial policy issues to analyse, even if the scientific evidence is all in, which it is not. The first is, what rate of social discount to apply to future damage. It is not good enough to say, as some academics do, that any rate above zero is immoral. Does this cover the state of the planet or the universe in ten million years’ time?
A more difficult question is what to do about a small probability of a huge disaster. This has been the deciding factor for some otherwise dispassionate analysts. But to raise the issue does not settle the matter. There must be other areas where threats exist and before one can draw conclusions about global warming, it is necessary to examine how such threats have been treated — and see if a common approach is possible. This is the problem. And I hope that the foundation will contribute towards a solution.
Sir Samuel Brittan was a columnist on the Financial Times for nearly 50 years. He was a founding member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
October 12, 2020 at 03:17PM
Joe Biden AND Kamala Harris outside the Heard Museum in Phoenix.
No one was holding signs on the road.
No one was outside of their venue to greet them.
The election is less than 4 weeks away and they have NO momentum!
FOX 10 Reporter: There’s really not much to see. It’s kind of boring out here. It’s not your typical presidential campaign event. We don’t see people campaigning outside. We don’t see signs or not much of what’s going on.
The post Shocked reporter says NO one showed up at Biden and Harris event – Video appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
October 12, 2020 at 03:09PM
Saturday night, I was eating chocolates at Catherine’s (remember my friend who tutors kids in maths), when Rowan phoned. Not any Rowan. The Rowan Dean from Sky Television. He was working late.
We had just been talking about him at dinner, because I was meant to be on his Sky TV ‘Outsiders’ program the next morning, and Emma had asked what I would be talking about. I had said I had no idea, pour me another red wine.
Anyway, Rowan was phoning to clarify that I would be talking about the new book, “But which chapters specifically?” he asked. Then, before I could answer, he suggested that Sunday morning his audience didn’t necessary like anything too technical, “Not too much detail”, he suggested.
“What about we start with the last chapter then?” I suggested.
The book has a long introduction, in which I suggest everyone should perhaps read the last chapter first because it includes an important warning for those who might seek the truth about climate change.
Scott Hargreaves explains in this chapter (chapter 20), with reference to Dante’s epic poem ‘Inferno’, if you search fearless for the truth, you may find yourself drawn down into the nine circles of hell. And it can be such a lonely journey. You may be ostracised. You may end-up losing your job, as happened to Peter Ridd for seeking the truth about coral calcification rates.
In chapter 20, Scott categorises various high-profile sceptics based on how far they have fallen. Yes. Fallen.
He places Bjorn Lomborg, for example, in Dante’s second circle of hell. He places Peter Ridd in circle number 6, and me in circle 8.
I do remember having a conversation with Bjorn some years ago. Bjorn had said once you start questioning the official statistics Jen, well you are potentially getting into the realm of the conspiracy theory – you are perhaps going too far to be credible.
I remember replying, but I have to go where-ever the the evidence takes me.
There is the Andrew Breitbart quote, “Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you.”
On page 14, in the introduction to the new book, I quote Thomas Huxley (the 19th Century biologist and colleague of Charles Darwin), he wrote:
Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
As it turned out, Sunday morning on ‘Outsiders’, we ended-up talking about other things entirely. Chapter 20 never got a mention.
Never mind, and never mind that trying to hotspot from my phone, got me an unstable internet connection. We still sold so many books after the program on Sunday. So much thanks to Rowan Dean for holding up the book so often!
Amongst other things, on Sunday morning I did briefly mention penguins. There is a whole chapter about counting emperor penguins in the book. That is actually the title of chapter 3: ‘Counting Emperor Penguins’.
It’s by Jim Steele and it explains how difficult it can be working out population numbers when whole colonies move, and individuals relocate because they are perhaps tired of wrestling with scientists!
It is the case that penguin monitoring once involved tagging, with scientists wrestling penguins to the ground in Antarctica. So, some of the penguins moved. The scientists recorded them as dying from climate change. They didn’t die, they moved!
There is more information about wrestling penguins in the book.
The picture at the top of this blog post is of two Emperor penguins via Shutterstock.
via Jennifer Marohasy
October 12, 2020 at 02:54PM
GWPF calls for fatally flawed UN report to be withdrawn
A new United Nations report on The Human Cost of Disasters has been described as “an embarrassment” and “a catalogue of errors” after it emerged its headline claim of a “staggering rise in climate-related disasters” was refuted by its own data.
Within hours of its publication by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), the report was being slammed for its misleading headlines and misuse of data.
The report’s claim of an increase in climate-related disasters is an embarrassment”, said GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser. “The UNDRR’s own data shows that climate-related disasters have actually been declining for 20 years”.
And Professor Roger Pielke Jr, a US-based expert in natural disasters, also pointed out on Twitter that the UN was misusing the source data, which measures human impacts of natural disasters rather than natural disasters themselves.
It’s a shambles; a catalogue of errors” said Dr Peiser. “The UN should withdraw the report immediately and apologise for misleading the public in this way”.
The post UN Disasters Report Is A Huge Blunder And Embarrassment appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
October 12, 2020 at 01:59PM
The biggest problem science and civilization face is free speech.
Tonight the ABC tells us (with a straight face) that the leader of the free world’s words were too dangerous for the public to read. The Gods at Twitter have determined what The Truth is. Funnily enough, the ABC gave us his message then used the Twitter censorship as a way of “proving” Trump lies, or is still infectious. The ABC weren’t bothered (10 mins) with the Twitter totalitarianism, they obviously didn’t think the public would be harmed either, because they read the message out. Instead this was “Proof by censorship”.
The fact that Twitter objected was all the “proof” the ABC needed. Dr Twitter said so.
Given that there are scores of papers saying that Covid survivors have antibodies that last for a few months, it’s quite believeable that DJT was right. Who is running the country? DJT or an unnamed Twitter list?
In deleting it, Twitter have probably promoted it far beyond anything they could have arranged deliberately.
The Media IS the problem
The media memory-hole becomes the decision making process. The most important message to share right now is not the intriciate political details but the message — that it’s all propaganda.
Far right extremists turn out to be BLM, Antifa fans
Australians watching Their ABC heard how the FBI arrested six far right extremists who planned to kidnap the Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer. She blames “Trumps hateful rhetoric”. But according to PJ Media, at least three of the six are BLM, Antifa, anti-Trump radicals.
Yet another one of the conspirators indicted in the plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has turned out to be an anarchist and this time is an identified Black Lives Matter, Inc.™ supporter.
If you’re keeping book, that now means at least three of the six men indicted by the federal government for the frightening conspiracy to kidnap the governor from her vacation home are avowed anti-Donald Trump anarchists and at least one is a BLM protester.
The ABC didn’t mention that tonight.
John Hinderaker, Powerline, explains how the Democrat Governor uses this in deeply dishonest fundraising email:
Today Governor Whitmer sent out a fundraising email to her supporters–or, anyway, those on her list, a group that includes me. The subject heading was: “We’ve seen the disastrous effects of Trump’s hateful rhetoric.” That is typical. Pretty much everything that goes wrong in the world is a result of “Trump’s hateful rhetoric.” The Democrats’ far more hateful rhetoric, meanwhile, has evidently no consequences.
It’s all in the way certain ducks are lined up
Hinderaker unpacks the Whitmer email to supporters. A series of disconnected mini-truths are exaggerated and lined up for effect. First she makes out Trump is attacking her, deriding her as “that woman”. (That bad, eh?) As Hinderaker says “How hateful can you get?” Having set the stage, she mentions Trump’s “Proud Boys” moment, declaring this was a call to right wing militant groups. Then … she says the FBI just thwarted a full fledged terrorist plot.
Far away in the lucky Australian bubble, the incident still made the news, but only the Democrat ducks got to quack. Hapless viewers would have to hunt to find out there was another story they needed to hunt for.
Australians hear how Trump lies nearly every night. If he does win in 2020, most Australians will have no idea why.
In a normal world, no politician should get away with abusing the truth.
What is most interesting to me about Whitmer’s email is that she and her handlers are confident that she can lie with impunity. They know that what they are saying about Trump’s comments in the first debate and about the leftists who allegedly conspired to kidnap Whitmer are lies, but they don’t care. They assume that the press will cover for them, and that the vast majority of those who receive their fundraising appeal will not know that it is based entirely on lies.
After a summer of left wing riots, looting and destruction, the media is hunting for any signs of non-left violence to amplify to “even things out”.
The best thing we can do is spread the word about the censorship.
h/t David E
October 12, 2020 at 01:23PM