Month: March 2019

Princeton Physics Professor Discredits Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory

Physics Professor William Happer discredits the negative effects of CO2 on the planet and whether or not climate change is man-made. He also goes into detail of why the United Nation’s models are incorrect despite their overwhelming confidence that significant warming is taking place due to human activity. *The views expressed by the interviewee(s) in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of The New American or any of its affiliates.*

How the Global Warming Scare Began

A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years.

Donald Trump is using Stalinist tactics to discredit climate science

Guardian March 20, 2019

A panel to promote an alternative explanation for climate change would be disastrous. Yet that’s what White House officials want

Americans should not be fooled by the Stalinist tactics being used by the White House to try to discredit the findings of mainstream climate science.

The Trump administration has already purged information about climate change from government websites, gagged federal experts and attempted to end funding for climate change programmes.

Now a group of hardcore climate change deniers and contrarians linked to the administration is organising a petition in support of a new panel being set up by the National Security Council to promote an alternative official explanation for climate change.

The panel will consist of scientists who do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are behind climate change and its impacts.

The petition is being circulated for signature by Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a lobby group for “free market” fanatics which has become infamous for championing climate change denial. It does not disclose its sources of funding, but is known to have received money from ExxonMobil and conservative billionaires such as the Koch brothers.

Mr Ebell, who has no expertise whatsoever in climate science – or any kind of science for that matter – was a member of Donald Trump’s presidential transition team and diverted the focus of the Environmental Protection Agency towards weakening and removing policies that limit pollution by companies, including President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

The creation of the new panel of climate change deniers, and the recruitment of supporters to provide it with a veneer of legitimacy, echoes the campaign by Joseph Stalin’s regime to discredit the work of geneticists who disagreed with the disastrous pseudo-scientific theories of Trofim Lysenko.

Lysenko wrongly believed that acquired traits could be passed on by parents to their offspring. Stalin embraced lysenkoism as the basis for Soviet agricultural policy, while also denouncing and persecuting Lysenko’s scientific critics.

The Trump administration’s “climate lysenkoism” is being led by William Happer, a retired professor from Princeton University who was hired by the National Security Council in September 2018 as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for emerging technologies.

Media reports suggest that Professor Happer and his fellow propagandists will target the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which was prepared by leading researchers in the United States, and concluded last November: “The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country.”

Although the report was subjected to rigorous review by America’s top experts at the National Academy of Sciences, it was rejected by President Trump, who told journalists: “I don’t believe it.”

Professor Happer, who has not published any research on climate change in a reputable science journal, has been celebrated for many years by climate change contrarians and deniers around the world.

He was formerly a trustee of the George C Marshall Institute, which received funding from ExxonMobil and other companies to spread doubt inside and outside the United States about the role of fossil fuels in climate change. It disappeared in 2015 and was replaced by the CO2 Coalition, which was co-founded by Professor Happer.

The website for the Coalition makes many inaccurate and misleading assertions, such as: “Readily available data from both governmental and non-governmental sources confirms that extreme weather events in recent years have not happened more often or with greater intensity.”

In fact, the Fifth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2013, concluded: “Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950.”

A recent leak of the Coaliton’s tax filing showed that its largest donors are conservative groups, such as the Mercer Family Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which have a long track record of funding climate change denial.

Professor Happer has also collaborated with climate change deniers in other countries, such as the United Kingdom. In 2010, he joined the “Academic Advisory Committee” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was set up by Lord Lawson to campaign against polices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels. He stepped down from the committee when he was hired by the White House.

The foundation published a pamphlet by Professor Happer in August 2011 which disputed the scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are causing climate change.

In July 2014, Professor Happer caused controversy during an interview on CNBC television in the United States when he claimed that “the demonisation of carbon dioxide is just like the demonisation of the poor Jews under Hitler. Carbon dioxide is actually a benefit to the world, and so were the Jews.”

He was also forced to defend himself after Greenpeace revealed an exchange of email messages during which Professor Happer discussed writing reports to promote climate change denial in exchange for a secret fee paid to the CO2 Coalition.

Americans should not be conned by the Trump administration’s climate lysenkoism and should instead place their trust in the robust findings of climate researchers who place the public interest ahead of political ideology.

Michael Mann is distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. Bob Ward is policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science

Massive Coalition Backs Trump’s Climate Science Committee

The New American Alex Newman | 20 March 2019

A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which comes amid fierce establishment resistance to re-examining government “climate science,” also backs an independent scientific review of the increasingly dubious claims made in federal climate reports. Analysts say this battle will be crucial in establishing the credibility of government climate science — or the lack thereof.

The coalition letter, signed by almost 40 leading policy organizations and well over 100 prominent leaders, argues that an independent review of federal global-warming reports is “long overdue.” “Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports,” the leaders and organizations explained. Indeed, in multiple cases, federal bureaucracies have even been accused of fraudulently manipulating data and findings to support their politically backed conclusions.

“Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred,” the signatories wrote.

The highly unscientific nature of the claims — many of which cannot be tested or falsified — also casts doubt on the alarmist findings contained in widely ridiculed federal climate reports. “An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method,” explained the coalition letter to Trump supporting the PCCS, which brought together many of America’s most influential environmental and conservative-leaning public policy organizations.

Perhaps the most alarming element of the whole saga is that this supposed “science” is serving as the pretext for trillions of dollars in government spending, as well as unprecedented empowerment of governments and international bureaucracies such as the United Nations and its various agencies. The man-made global-warming hypothesis also underpins drastic policy changes that restrict individual liberty and free markets that harm everyone, and especially the world’s poorest people, for nebulous alleged benefits. As such, the science must be thoroughly reviewed, and it must be completely transparent, the coalition said.

“The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of trillions of dollars over several decades,” the letter explained. “Given the magnitude of the potential costs involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new airplane.”

As The New American reported earlier this month, the establishment is in full freak-out mode over the proposed presidential commission on climate science. Far-left Democrats in Congress have slammed the idea as “dangerous.” A coalition of globalist “national security” professionals, mostly from the far-left Obama administration, even claimed reviewing the science would be a threat to “national security.” The establishment media has gone absolutely bonkers, endlessly demonizing Trump and Happer for failing to genuflect before their climate beliefs — the faith of a “climate” movement that leading experts such as MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen have even described as a “cult.”

The letter highlighted how bizarre this was. “We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission,” the signatories wrote. “We find this opposition curious. If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.”

Indeed, as this magazine and many other sources have documented, the alleged “science” upon which the man-made global-warming hysteria is based is highly suspect at best. Self-styled “climate scientists” have been repeatedly exposed in unethical behavior, including hiding and manipulating data that contradicts their hypothesis. The predictions of the alarmist movement have been remarkably consistent, too — for decades, they have been wrong about virtually everything. And even former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have blown the whistle on massive fraud, only to be ignored or demonized by alarmists.

The nasty and vitriolic attacks on skeptical scientists such as Dr. Happer are also highly suspicious. “We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to making personal attacks on Dr. Happer,” the letter to Trump continued, praising the Princeton physics professor who is almost universally respected in the scientific community. “Many signers of this letter know Dr. Happer personally and all are familiar with his scientific career. We know him to be a man of high capabilities, high achievements, and the highest integrity.”

Indeed, Happer is a leading expert in this field, and is widely respected scientist even among those who disagree with him. He also happens to disagree with the increasingly discredited hypothesis that man’s emissions of CO2 — a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — control the climate. “CO2 will be good for the Earth,” Happer told The New American magazine at a 2016 climate conference in Phoenix, Arizona, that brought together leading scientists and experts in various fields to expose the lies and alarmism. He added it was “pretty clear that we’re not going to see dangerous climate change” as a result of human CO2 emissions.

Among the lead organizations involved in gathering signatures for the letter was the non-profit Heartland Institute, a leading scientific think tank on climate issues. The group, which has organized climate conferences and helps put together the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and its flagship “Climate Change Reconsidered” reports examining the scientific literature, recently released a policy brief highlighting the national security threat to America posed by alarmist-inspired energy restrictions. Also playing a lead role was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Both organizations, which focus on the environment, helped gather signatures and support.

“An unbiased, independent examination of the science of climate change by an official government body is long overdue,” said Tim Huelskamp, Ph.D., president of the Heartland Institute. “It’s only necessary because government bureaucrats have put ideology above science and excluded the wealth of data and research that undermines their narrative that human activity is the main driver of catastrophic climate change.” Alongside scientists, climate experts, and other signatories, former Congressman Huelskamp urged Trump to “resist the cries of alarmists inside and outside government and allow the esteemed Dr. Will Happer to convene this commission and report back the results to the American people.”

Other organizations involved include  Heritage Action, FreedomWorks, American Energy Alliance, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Climate Depot, the 60 Plus Association, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), Institute for Energy Research, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the International Climate Science Coalition, Eagle Forum, Americans for Limited Government, Energy and Environment Legal Institute, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, American Commitment, Hispanic Leadership Fund, Conservative Action Project, CNP Action, American Lands Council, American Policy Center, the Institute for Liberty, Caesar Rodney Institute, Ethan Allen Institute, John Locke Foundation, Rio Grande Foundation, The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, Center for Industrial Progress, Clear Energy Alliance, and many more. Dozens of scientists and experts also signed in their individual capacities.

The tax-funded “climate” alarmism lobby is in total panic about the proposed commission to review the science. And it seems they have good reason to be terrified — after all the scandals such as Climategate more recent NOAA data suppression, it has become clear that the alarmism is not based on science at all. Trump, who has ridiculed the man-made warming hypothesis as a “hoax,” is under tremendous pressure to cave in. Analysts who spoke with The New American said this battle over the PCCS represents the culmination of this struggle. For those who value real science, it is imperative that the alleged science underpinning the alarmism be reviewed by independent experts. As the scientists and experts behind the letter explained, Trump must move ahead. The future of freedom depends on it.

Photo: 3DSculptor/iStock/Getty Images Plus 

Busted: Club Of Rome Reveals Gushing Support For Green New Deal

Technocracy News March 15, 2019

The venerable global elite group, The Club of Rome, has tipped its hand by gushing over the Sunrise Movement and the Green New Deal.

Founded in 1968, the Club of Rome was the original elite group who created crisis-mode global cooling and then global warming. They produced the infamous treatise called “The Limits to Growth” that was positioned as “A Report for The Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind.” Limits to Growth proposed a resource-based economic system in the likeness of Technocracy, and called for economic equilibrium between population and available resources.

When the Trilateral Commission was co-founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski to establish a “New International Economic Order”, Club of Rome members intermingled with the Bilderberg group and members of the Commission.

The totality of the Green New Deal spectacle in America is precisely in line with the global elite’s plan to force Sustainable Development upon the entire world. In the Club’s statement below, they state “We know the facts. We have the solutions. We just need the political will.” The purpose of Green New Deal movement is specifically to develop the “political will” to implement their “solutions”.

The recent tweet that spilled the beans on Club of Rome’s support is pictured below.

The organization sponsoring these youth protests is the Sunrise Movement. Their website states,

We’re building an army of young people to make climate change an urgent priority across America, end the corrupting influence of fossil fuel executives on our politics, and elect leaders who stand up for the health and wellbeing of all people.

We are ordinary young people who are scared about what the climate crisis means for the people and places we love. We are gathering in classrooms, living rooms, and worship halls across the country. Everyone has a role to play. Public opinion is already with us – if we unite by the millions we can turn this into political power and reclaim our democracy.

These students may think that they are “ordinary young people” but they are completely unaware that they are being shamefully manipulated and orchestrated by the global elite to drive the world into Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

In The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, they stated:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together.”

Thus, The Club itself takes credit for coming up with the global warming mantra in order to drive global adoption of Sustainable Development. In other words, global warming was an intentional, premeditated fraud.

The full statement released by the Club or Rome in support of the above Twitter posting is reproduced below:

Winterthur, Switzerland, 14th March 2019

People always tell me that they are so hopeful that young people are going to save the world. But they are not. There is simply not enough time to wait for us to grow up and become the ones in charge” Greta Thunberg

This week, hundreds of thousands of students in multiple cities across the globe will once again follow in the brave footsteps of Greta Thunberg by staging climate demonstrations. Their call to world leaders is simple yet true: “it is time for less talk and more action on the climate”.

We deem the students’ concerns to be utterly justified and irrefutable and will continue to play our role in ensuring ambitious climate action. These courageous young leaders point to challenges for the planet and humanity which have long been recognized by the scientists, economists, business leaders and experts within the Club of Rome*.

It has been 50 years since the “The Limits to Growth”, which alerted the world to the acute environmental and demographic challenges ahead. Decades of exponential growth in both population and consumption are now colliding with the limits of the Earth’s biosphere. We concur with the Extinction Rebellion and the student protesters that we cannot turn a blind eye to the dual tipping points of species extinction and climate change. Emergency action is more necessary than ever and cannot be put off any longer. We no longer have the luxury of time!

We know the facts. We have the solutions. We just need the political will. Global action is lagging and is often woefully inadequate, stymied by political meandering. This is why we are calling on governments across the world to listen to the call for urgent action from young people, scientists and experts and translate these calls into concrete Climate Emergency Plans with clear targets and time lines. To avoid the worst outcomes, global carbon emissions must be cut by half by 2030 and to zero by 2050. For the wealthier nations, this increases to around 80% by 2030, with full de-carbonisation less than a decade later. This is an unprecedented task, requiring a reduction rate of at least 7% annually; no country has to date achieved more than 1.5%.

The only possible response is emergency action that will transform human social, economic and financial systems. Yet we also believe that the existential threat from climate change, if heeded now, offers the possibility for a societal renaissance of unprecedented proportions. This is the vision we seek to promote – a vision of the future, which ensures well-being for the many and harmony between humanity and the planetary boundaries that protect us. A vision which speaks to the calls from young people marching on the streets in towns and cities across the world.

Engaged citizens of all ages demanding action by their politicians on climate change is of paramount importance, to hold us all accountable for delivering on our climate goals and ensuring that we seize this opportunity to sustainably transform our economies.

Let us find the vision, the leadership and the creativity to collaborate in developing constructive solutions for a decent future for present and succeeding generations. We have the capabilities: we must now find the will and listen to the enlightened youth who have taken time away from their studies to march on the streets to be heard.


R. Clark, Mar. 21.2013 | E&E Submission V4 Part II Final Draft
Roy Clark, Ph.D.
Ventura Photonics
1336 N. Moorpark Road #224
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 USA

The coupled thermal reservoir approach described in Part I is demonstrated by analyzing flux and meteorological data covering a range of thermal reservoir conditions. These include mid latitude ocean thermal storage, the surface flux balance of the Pacific warm pool and the land surface flux balance in S. California. In addition to temperature data, the effects of thermal gradients, flux interaction lengths and the time delay or phase shift between the heating flux and the temperature response are considered. Long term climate trends in weather station minimum meteorological surface air temperature (MSAT) data are also analyzed. For selected California and UK weather stations these follow the regional trends in ocean surface temperature. This allows urban heat island effects and other weather station biases to be investigated. The effect of a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on these data sets is shown to be too small to be measured.

The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness

By Ferenc Miskolczi
3 Holston Lane, Hampton VA 23664, USA
Article in Energy & Environment · August 2010
DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.21.4.243

By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. Interms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation, the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-all-sky model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008 time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thicknessis found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used. The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.

A Null Hypothesis For CO2

R. Clark
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171

Roy Clark
Thousand Oaks

The energy transfer processes that occur at the Earth’s surface are examined from first principles. The effect of small changes in the solar constant caused by variations in the sunspot cycles and small increases in downward long wave infrared flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on surface temperature are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.

An Analysis of the Recent Climate Change Hysteria

WUWT by Dr. Tim Ball | March 16, 2019

Climate strikers. Image via Twitter.

Most people were taken in by the false story of human-caused global warming. We can include all the students participating in the classroom walkout to demand governments stop climate change, organized by 16-year-old Greta Thunberg. Her goal is to keep global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Apparently, she has no idea that the temperature was near or above that level for most of the last 10,000-years in a period known as the Holocene Optimum.

They are taken in by the false claim that a minute amount of human-produced CO2 is effectively controlling the entire atmospheric system since 1950 and causing environmental collapse through global warming. They don’t know that there is an upper limit to the amount that CO2 can increase temperature. They don’t know that the average level of CO2 over the last 250 million years is 1200 ppm. They don’t know that every projection of temperature by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1990 was wrong. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, how did so few, fool so many, to such an extent, for so long?

Similar situations occur throughout history of people fooling the world, although this is undoubtedly the largest in terms of its acceptance, impact, and cost. It is tempting to point the finger at the IPCC, but the speed with which the story took hold, spread, and deceived so many people requires better explanation. It likely won’t stop it occurring in the future because it speaks to the nature of human beings and our inordinate and pandemic fear that the sky might fall. However, we might stop the current insanity.

Global warming due to human activities was a subset of the wider moral panic created by the new and necessary paradigm of environmentalism. There are many parallels between the claims of human-caused global warming (AGW) and such events in history as the Salem witchcraft trials. In that case, the climate was probably to blame. However, it was never identified at the time and rarely mentioned by experts today. Instead, during a time of poor harvests and social hardship people were looking for something or someone to blame.  Now they believe unequivocally that humans are to blame for everything.

Between February 1652 and May 1693, they brought 200 people to trial on charges of witchcraft. The symptoms were identified first in two young women brought before a tribunal and accused of hearing voices, dancing frenetically to exhaustion, all the classic symptoms of witchcraft. The problem is that these are also the classic symptoms of Ergot fungus poisoning.  Conditions were ideal for the occurrence of high levels of Ergot poisoning at that time, just as they were for other periods of witch-hunting in Europe in the Middle Ages. Once people in authority formalize the moral panic through the formation of commissions of inquiry and other vehicles, the stampede is on. It takes on a life of its own that ignores facts, reason, and logic. In the Salem area they hanged 19 people, 15 women, and four men.

All this occurred in a society of Puritan’s, people taking their belief system to extremes. Today’s moral panic is occurring in an equally narrow belief system called environmentalism.

Sociologist Stanley Cohen identified the pattern of moral panic in a 1972 book titled, Folk Devils and Moral Panics. First, he identified the five stages of the panic as follows. I added in italics the names of the appropriate agent, agency, or factor as it relates to the moral panic of global warming.

  1. Something or someone is perceived and defined as a threat to social norms and the interests of the community or society at large.

The Club of Rome identified industrial development using resources at an unsustainable rate as the threat. They do this by burning fossil fuels and the by-product, CO2, is raising the global temperature to catastrophic levels.

  • News media and members of the community/society then depict the threat in simplistic symbolic ways that quickly become recognizable to the greater public.

The UN created the IPCC that produced the false science using their computer models that isolated CO2 as the cause of global warming.

They then deliberately distorted their findings by the creation of a Summary for Policymakers.

  • Widespread public concern is aroused by the way news media portrays the symbolic representation of the threat.

The IPCC produced the hockey stick graph that rewrote temperature history. It showed no temperature change for 600-years (the handle) followed by a dramatic increase after 1880 (the blade). As Ross McKitrick said, the hockey stick became the poster-child for global warming.

  • Authorities and policymakers respond to the threat, be it real or perceived, with new laws or policies.

Millions of dollars were directed to alternate energies, even though a cursory look shows they cannot replace fossil fuels. Meaningful cost/benefit analyses were never done.

In most countries, no activity occurs without first receiving unnecessary environmental and climate approval.

Most countries created environmental laws that restricted energy use and development in a variety of ways.

They exploited guilt by creation of the concept of a carbon footprint; a vague and meaningless measure but visible on the landscape.

  • The moral panic and actions by those in power that follows it results in social change within the community.

Energy companies that provided the basis for development that improved the quality of life for everyone on the planet became the focus of attack, including lawsuits.

The car that gave millions freedom, mobility, and wider options became evil on wheels.

Cohen then identified “five key sets of actors: involved.”

  • The threat that incites the moral panic, which Cohen referred to as “folk devils”;

The folk devil is CO2 coming from those evil planet-destroying industries driven by their selfish, self-serving, profit motive.

  • Enforcers of rules or laws, like institutional authority figures, police, or armed forces;

The biggest was UN Agenda 21 created through the bureaucrats of national weather offices. They even built in a Principle (15) that allows them to act even if there is no evidence.

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

We don’t need evidence. If we decide it is a threat, then it is a threat.

  • The news media, which breaks the news about the threat and continues to report on it, thereby setting the agenda for how it is discussed, and attaching visual symbolic images to it;

The media is the great selector and amplifier of the global warming false story. Every day, they take a normal weather or climate event and say or imply it is abnormal. An emaciated polar bear was just one example of a visual symbolic image.

The media are the gossis in the global village.

  • Politicians, who respond to the threat, and sometimes fan the flames of the panic;

Senator Timothy Wirth, an originator of the public panic said back in 1993 that

We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Al Gore, from the pulpit of the White House, used the best storyteller in the world, Hollywood, to create the best piece of propaganda ever produced – An Inconvenient Truth. Now, there is the more hysterical claim from the UN itself that there are 12 years left.

  1. And the public, who develop focused concern about the threat and demand action in response to it.

Demand for action from a variety of groups across the world hasn’t produced the economy destroying total social control environmentalists sought. Now they are using the children in the ultimate form of child abuse. It is sickening to consider the use of children in the Salem witch hunts. It was two children who started the accusations but as one author notes,

“Puritan belief suggested that children were among the most likely to become servants of the Devil. They were easy to influence and take advantage of. In some cases, their environment made these children susceptible to thinking that they were evil sinners, which made it likely that their confessions were heartfelt.”

Some people will argue that we live in different times and such moral panic cannot occur today. Many will add, this is especially true in modern western society. It is true, there is no burning of witches, but the ostracization from the society of those that the mob identifies are deniers is only one step away. What you cannot deny is that the world was taken in by a patently false story and overwhelmed by exploitation of fear and guilt that we, the people, are destroying the planet because of our greed and ignorance. If you don’t believe it, listen to the children, whose future you are putting in jeopardy.

A cynical definition of a Puritan is a person who is afraid that somewhere somebody is having a good time. Environmentalists are the new green Puritans. Is this why the attendees at the Second Continental Congress, the authors of the Declaration of Independence, identified the Pursuit of Happiness as an inalienable right – or were they just having a laugh.

Anthony: To get an idea of just how “off the rails” these people are, have a look at this CNN thread on the topic:

Global Warming: Correlation Between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Temperature

Karl Glaser, Roche Colorado Corporation. Boulder, Colorado

The correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and surface temperature was determined at various locations, using published data from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Significant correlations were seen, with a lag of approximately 45 – 60 years between the rise in temperature and the rise in carbon dioxide concentration.