Global warming is not happening

[The Bobster]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11...ps-climate-comments-read-full-nyt-transcript/

Media falsely spins Trump’s NYT climate comments – Trump cited Climategate, restated skepticism of ‘global warming’

Trump to NYT warmist Tom Friedman: 'A lot of smart people disagree with you' on climate change.

Trump correctly cited the Climategate scandal: 'They say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between scientists...Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about.'

By: Marc Morano - Climate Depot
November 23, 2016 9:40 AM with 1210 comments

Climate Depot Analysis

The media spin on President Elect Donald J. Trump’s sit down with the New York Times on November 22, can only be described as dishonest. Trump appears to soften stance on climate change & Donald Trump backflips on climate change & Trump on climate change in major U-turn

The ‘fake news’ that Trump had somehow moderated or changed his “global warming” views was not supported by the full transcript of the meeting.

Heartland Institute President Joe Bast had this to say about the full transcript of Trump’s meeting: “This is reassuring. The Left wants to drive wedges between Trump and his base by spinning anything he says as “retreating from campaign promises.” But expressing nuance and avoiding confrontation with determined foes who buy ink by the barrel is not retreating.” The Heartland Institute released their skeptical 2015 climate report featuring 4,000 peer-reviewed articles debunking the UN IPCC claims.

Trump’s climate science view that there is “some connectivity” between humans and climate is squarely a skeptical climate view. Trump explained, “There is some, something. It depends on how much.”

Trump’s views are shared by prominent skeptical scientists. University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has said: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Stott is featured in new skeptical climate change documentary Climate Hustle.

Scientists at the UN climate summit in Marrakech commended Trump’s climate views. See: Skeptical scientists crash UN climate summit, praise Trump for ‘bringing science back again’

Trump also told resident NYT warmist Tom Friedman: ‘A lot of smart people disagree with you’ on climate change. (Note: Friedman has some wacky views: Flashback 2009: NYT’s Tom Friedman lauds China’s eco-policies: ‘One party can just impose politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward’)

Once again, Trump was 100% accurate as very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called climate “consensus.”

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

Trump correctly cited the Climategate scandal: “They say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between scientists…Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about.” See: Watch & Read: 7th anniversary of Climategate – The UN Top Scientists Exposed

Trump cited his uncle, a skeptical MIT scientist: “My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject.” (Yes, other MIT scientists are very skeptical as well. See: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

It is also worth noting that Trump’s often cited 2012 tweet about climate change stating “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” was clearly a joke and he has said it was a joke. It is further worth noting that climate skeptics do not believe the conecpt of “climate change” was “created” by China.

The media have created a cartoon-version view of Trump’s climate views. If he says anything short of global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese, then the media claims Trump flip-flopped.

And in what has been described as “fake news”, the publisher of NYT tried to sell CO2-induced storms to Trump; but Trump refused to accept the claim.

NYT’s Arthur Sulzberger: ‘We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.’

Trump countered: ‘We’ve had storms always, Arthur.’

Trump is accurately citing the latest climate science by noting that extreme weather is not getting worse. See: 2016 ‘State of the Climate Report’

•The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.

•Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.

•Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.

•Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.

Trump’s claim to have an “open mind” on U.S. climate policy and his comment that “I’m going to take a look at” withdrawing from the UN Paris agreement are more nuanced than his previous blunt statements that the U.S. will cancel the UN agreement. But those comments in the context of the interview are hardly a flip-flop or major signal of changing views on the issue.

(Climate Depot Note:
UN Paris climate deal ‘is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty’ – ‘Cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually’

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!)

http://www.thegwpf.com/donald-trump-on-climategate-the-paris-agrement/

Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview

President-elect Donald J. Trump during a meeting at The New York Times’s offices in Manhattan on Tuesday.

[….] THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …

[laughter, cross talk]

TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape. (Note:
Trump’s Seawall Is About His Business, Not Global Warming – ‘Only shows Trump uses climate alarmism to benefit his business’
)

[laughter]

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind. (Note:
EPA Says That The Worst Heat Waves Occurred in The 1930s
)

My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

FRIEDMAN: I’d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.

TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?

[…]

MICHAEL D. SHEAR, White House correspondent: Mr. Trump, Mike Shear. I cover the White House, covering your administration …

TRUMP: See ya there.

[laughter]

SHEAR: Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate …

TRUMP: I’m going to take a look at it.

Full interview

#

Related Links:


UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After Trump Event – SHREDDED UN Climate Treaty at Summit

– Full Video of UN Climate Cops Shutting Down Skeptics


Climate Report to UN: Trump right, UN wrong – Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit

Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Set to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!

Bjorn Lomborg: Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all – Clexit ‘will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’

– ‘So Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’

‘The Trump Taboo’ at UN climate summit: He is ‘omnipresent…even though nobody is saying his name’

– ‘There is a taboo word at this year’s 22nd UN climate change summit: Trump. The president-elect is omnipresent in Marrakesh. You can feel him lurking behind talks on low-carbon economies and in the cracks between climate-induced loss and damage. He’s never directly addressed, but he’s always in the room. You can tell from the anxiety in people’s voices and their disapproving headshakes, heavy with concern for what the future for action on climate change holds.’

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/24/antarctic-sea-ice-has-not-shrunk-in-100-years/

Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years

Not only has Antarctic sea ice not changed, but land based ice is expanding according to NASA study.

NASA Study: ‘Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise’ – ‘Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses’

By: Marc Morano - Climate Depot
November 24, 2016 11:04 AM with 113 comments

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change. But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming. –Sarah Knapton, The Daily Telegraph, 24 November 2016

1) Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years, Scott And Shackleton Logbooks Prove
The Daily Telegraph, 24 November 2016

2) Trump To Scrap NASA Climate Research In Crackdown On ‘Politicized Science’
The Guardian, 23 November 2016

3) GWPF Climate Briefing: A Brief History Of Arctic Angst
GWPF Climate Briefing, November 2016

4) Reality Check: Donald Trump On Climategate & The Paris Agreement
GWPF, 23 November 2016

5) Bjorn Lomborg: Trump’s Climate Plan Might Not Be So Bad After All
The Washington Post, 21 November 2016

In 2009, Al Gore announced ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.’ The dates by which climate scientists and politicians said the ice would disappear have come and gone, while the ice has remained. Undaunted, fresh predictions have been made in every subsequent year. One problem that persists is that there is still only a relatively short series of direct measurements on which to base our understanding of the Arctic. Satellite monitoring of the Arctic only began in 1978, giving us less than forty years of reliable data. This may not be enough to establish what is normal – or abnormal – for the region. Until the noise of a century of media hype and unscientific speculation about the Arctic has been removed from the public debate, science will be unable to explain what, if anything, the signal from the Arctic is telling us. —GWPF Climate Briefing, November 2016

Donald Trump plans to put NASA’s focus back on space exploration and cut away programs that study climate change. Bob Walker, an adviser to Trump, told The Guardian that the incoming president wants to keep NASA away from ‘politicized science.’ Other government agencies can take on climate research, he said. ‘We see NASA in an exploration role, in deep space research,’ Walker told the publication. ‘Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.’ –Francesca Chambers, Daily Mail, 23 November 2016

The international news media is reporting that Donald Trump has changed his mind on climate change and the Paris climate agreement. Yet the transcript of his New York Times interview shows it is far too early to know what the next US President will do about climate and energy policy. —GWPF, 23 November 2016

The election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress have terrified environmentalists and climate campaigners, who have declared that the next four years will be a “disaster.” Fear is understandable. We have much to learn about the new administration’s plans. But what little we know offers some cause for hope. Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end. –Bjorn Lomborg, The Washington Post, 21 November 2016

1) Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years, Scott And Shackleton Logbooks Prove
The Daily Telegraph, 24 November 2016

Sarah Knapton

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton.

Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change.

But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming.

It also explains why sea ice levels in the South Pole have begun to rise again in recent years, a trend which has left climate scientists scratching their heads.

“The missions of Scott and Shackleton are remembered in history as heroic failures, yet the data collected by these and other explorers could profoundly change the way we view the ebb and flow of Antarctic sea ice,” said Dr Jonathan Day, who led the study, which was published in the journal The Cryosphere.

“We know that sea ice in the Antarctic has increased slightly over the past 30 years, since satellite observations began. Scientists have been grappling to understand this trend in the context of global warming, but these new findings suggest it may not be anything new.

“If ice levels were as low a century ago as estimated in this research, then a similar increase may have occurred between then and the middle of the century, when previous studies suggest ice levels were far higher.”

The study was based on the ice observations recorded in the logbooks from 11 voyages between 1897 and 1917, including three expeditions led by Captain Scott, two by Shackleton, as well as sea-ice records from Belgian, German and French missions.

Captain Scott died along with his team in 1912 after losing to Norwegian Roald Amundsen in the race to the South Pole, while Shackleton’s ship sank after becoming trapped in ice in 1915 as he and his crew attempted the first land crossing of Antarctica.

The study is the first to calculate sea ice in the period prior to the 1930s, and suggests the levels in the early 1900s were between 3.3 and 4.3 million square miles (5.3 and 7.4 million square kilometres)

Estimates suggest Antarctic sea ice extent was significantly higher during the 1950s, before a steep decline returned it to around 3.7 million miles (6 million square kilometres) in recent decades which is just 14 per cent smaller than at the highest point of the 1900s and 12 per cent bigger than than the lowest point.

The findings demonstrate that the climate of Antarctica fluctuated significantly throughout the 20th century and indicates that sea ice in the Antarctic is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than that of the Arctic, which has experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century.

In future the team plans to use data from naval and whaling ships as well as the logs from Amundsen’s expeditions to complete the picture.

Separate research by the British Antarctic Survey also showed that the present day loss of the Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been happening since the mid 20th century and was probably caused by El Nino activity rather than global warming.

Pine Island Glacier, which drains into the Amundsen Sea in West Antarctica, is retreating and thinning rapidly, but the initial triggering mechanism was unclear. The team looked a sediment cores in the area which showed that an ocean cavity under the ice shelf began to form around 1945, following a pulse of warmth associated with El Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

See also: Estimating the extent of Antarctic summer sea ice during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration
The Cryosphere, 10, 2721-2730, 2016 — 21 November 2016

Tom Edinburgh and Jonathan J. Day

Abstract. In stark contrast to the sharp decline in Arctic sea ice, there has been a steady increase in ice extent around Antarctica during the last three decades, especially in the Weddell and Ross seas. In general, climate models do not to capture this trend and a lack of information about sea ice coverage in the pre-satellite period limits our ability to quantify the sensitivity of sea ice to climate change and robustly validate climate models. However, evidence of the presence and nature of sea ice was often recorded during early Antarctic exploration, though these sources have not previously been explored or exploited until now. We have analysed observations of the summer sea ice edge from the ship logbooks of explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott, Ernest Shackleton and their contemporaries during the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration (1897–1917), and in this study we compare these to satellite observations from the period 1989–2014, offering insight into the ice conditions of this period, from direct observations, for the first time. This comparison shows that the summer sea ice edge was between 1.0 and 1.7° further north in the Weddell Sea during this period but that ice conditions were surprisingly comparable to the present day in other sectors.

2) Trump To Scrap NASA Climate Research In Crackdown On ‘Politicized Science’
The Guardian, 23 November 2016

Oliver Milman

Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.

This would mean the elimination of Nasa’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. Nasa’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.

Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.

“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.

“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”

3) GWPF Climate Briefing: A Brief History Of Arctic Angst
GWPF Climate Briefing, November 2016

Until the noise of a century of media hype and unscientific speculation about the Arctic has been removed from the public debate, science will be unable to explain what, if anything, the signal from the Arctic is telling us.

In the last days of the Northern hemisphere’s summer, the sea ice that covers part of the Arctic Ocean reaches its minimum extent.

The annual change, recorded by satellites, has come to be seen as evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and a warning of what is to come.

It features in the global news every Summer. One journalist has called it the planet’s ‘white flag of surrender’, others the ‘Arctic Death Spiral’.

The lowest sea ice extent ever recorded was in 2012, and previous to that in 2007.

In the 2000s, a new trend of decreasing sea ice minimums seemed to be emerging. Whereas computer models had predicted that Arctic summer sea ice wouldn’t disappear until the middle of the century, the rate of decline seemed to be much faster.

The story of rapid, unnatural change and the plight of the polar bear became powerful symbols of climate change happening in real time. Campaigners launched high profile, swimming, kayaking and evidence-gathering missions to the North Pole to draw the media’s attention to the issue.

In 2007, media stories featured the claims of Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski, who claimed that the ice would be gone by 2013.

The following year, Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) predicted that 2008 could be “become ice free at the North Pole this year.”

And in 2009, Al Gore announced ‘there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.’

But the missions to the Arctic were hampered by bad weather, not open sea. And the dates by which climate scientists and politicians said the ice would disappear have come and gone, while the ice has remained.

Undaunted, fresh predictions have been made in every subsequent year.

2016 was no exception. In June, one scientist claimed that his prediction of an ice-free Arctic ocean might finally come true. The story made headlines throughout the world. But rather than disappearing, the joint-second lowest sea ice extent since 1978 was recorded…

Until the noise of a century of media hype and unscientific speculation about the Arctic has been removed from the public debate, science will be unable to explain what, if anything, the signal from the Arctic is telling us.

4) Reality Check: Donald Trump On Climategate & The Paris Agreement
GWPF, 23 November 2016

The international news media is reporting that Donald Trump has changed his mind on climate change and the Paris climate agreement.

Yet the transcript of his New York Times interview shows it is far too early to know what the next US President will do about climate and energy policy.


President-elect Donald J. Trump during a meeting at The New York Times’s offices in Manhattan on Tuesday.CreditHiroko Masuike/The New York Times

Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview: Transcript

[….] THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …
[laughter, cross talk]

TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape.
[laughter]

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.
[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right.

We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

FRIEDMAN: I’d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.

TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?
[…]

MICHAEL D. SHEAR, White House correspondent: Mr. Trump, Mike Shear. I cover the White House, covering your administration …

TRUMP: See ya there.
[laughter]

SHEAR: Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate …

TRUMP: I’m going to take a look at it.

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...-But-Dont-Blame-Climate-Change-405147245.html

Mosquitoes Thrive in US, but Don't Blame Climate Change: Study
Mosquitoes spread Zika, West Nile, dengue and other illness
Published at 1:42 AM EST on Dec 7, 2016 | Updated at 7:13 AM EST on Dec 7, 2016

A surprising new study finds that mosquito populations have exploded in parts of the United States, but not because of a warming climate. Instead, the study finds, growing cities and the ban on the insecticide DDT may be responsible, NBC News reported.

The trend doesn't bode well for the spread of illness — not just Zika virus, but West Nile virus, dengue virus, chikungunya and others, the team at the University of California, Santa Cruz found.

They tracked mosquito populations in New York, New Jersey and California.

"Mosquito populations have increased as much as tenfold, and mosquito communities have become two- to fourfold richer over the last five decades," A. Marm Kilpatrick and colleagues wrote in their report, published in Nature Communications.

 

[The Bobster]

http://nypost.com/2016/12/08/leonardo-dicaprio-meets-with-trump-to-discuss-climate-change/

Trump talks climate change with Leo DiCaprio
By Daniel Halper
December 8, 2016 | 9:06am

Photo: NY Post Illustration; Getty Images


President-elect Donald Trump has a new — and unlikely — adviser: Leonardo "The Goat Roper" DiCrapio.

DiCaprio met with Trump to push climate activism and green jobs — just as the president-elect announced a climate-science skeptic to head the EPA on Wednesday.

Terry Tamminen, the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation CEO, released a statement after the Trump Tower meeting, calling it the first in a series.

“The president-elect expressed his desire for a follow-up meeting in January, and we look forward to continuing the conversation with the incoming administration as we work to stop the dangerous march of climate change, while putting millions of people to work at the same time,” Tamminen said.

Tamminen told the Associated Press the celebrity not only gave a presentation to Trump and his team, but also to future first daughter Ivanka Trump.

“Our conversation focused on how [to] create millions of secure, American jobs in the construction and operation of commercial and residential clean, renewable energy generation,” said Tamminen.

“These programs [are] attainable — and include energy efficiency upgrades that pay for themselves with savings, waste reduction projects that can turn every city into a source of new materials and fuels, and transportation projects that will support global trade while reducing traffic and air pollution and make America a leader in sustainable fuel and vehicle technologies,” Tamminen added.

It came as Trump chose Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma, who has sued the EPA, to head the agency.

 

[The Bobster]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/08/global-warming-protesters-met-with-bitter-cold-snow/

Global Warming Protesters Met With Bitter Cold, Snow
9:04 PM 12/08/2016

A small group of global warming activists protesting oil and gas drilling outside the Department of Interior office in Colorado Thursday morning were met with bitter cold weather and snow.

About 10 “Keep It In The Ground” activists waved signs next to a busy road in the Denver area, calling for the Obama administration to stop issuing leases so companies can drill on public lands. Activists say drilling only exacerbates global warming.

The irony, however, is activists stood outside about 4 inches of snow with temperatures hovering in the 20s — in degrees Fahrenheit. The official low temperature was negative 10 degrees early Thursday morning, according to the National Weather Service.

Activists with 350.org and Food & Water Watch braved the cold to protest hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” after two measures to restrict the drilling technique failed to make November’s ballot. The pro-fracking Western Energy Alliance took photos of activists trying to stay warm. You can view the photos here.

“While it is clear that the national activist groups behind these efforts are not abandoning their goal to ban fracking, they picked a day to protest the use of fossil fuels when most Coloradans are likely more thankful than ever for the affordable energy provided by domestic energy development,” Randy Hildreth, a writer for the industry-backed, Energy In Depth, wrote in a blog post.

Now, of course, one cold day doesn’t disprove global warming, but it continues a trend of activists being beaten by cold weather when holding events trying to highlight how fossil fuels are warming the planet.

This phenomenon is called the “Gore effect” — coined after a global warming rally held by former Vice President Al Gore in 2004 was met with frigid weather. A similar rally held by Gore in 2006 in Australia was also hit by cold weather.

It’s not just Gore who’s held freezing global warming rallies. Yale anti-fossil fuel campaigners postponed a protest in early 2015 due to “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues.” New Haven witnessed a negative 9 degrees when the event was canceled.

In 2013, environmental protesters in Washington state were hit with cold weather and snow flurries protesting global warming. Activists tried to encourage the crowd that “climate and weather are two different things,” but words didn’t warm anybody up that day.

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...sequel-debut-at-sundance-opening-night-954933

'An Inconvenient Truth' Sequel to Debut at Sundance Opening Night
4:25 PM PST 12/9/2016
by Rebecca Ford

Paramount will release the follow-up to Algore's Academy Award-winning crockumentary about the world's climate crisis in 2017.

The Sundance Film Festival will open with a follow-up to An Inconvenient Truth, former Vice President Al Gore’s two-time Academy Award-winning documentary about the world’s climate crisis.

From Participant Media, and directed by Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk, the sequel follows Gore as he continues his decades-long fight to build a more sustainable future for the planet.

“Now more than ever we must rededicate ourselves to solving the climate crisis," said Gore in a statement. "But we have reason to be hopeful; the solutions to the crisis are at hand. I’m deeply honored and grateful that Paramount Pictures and Participant Media have once again taken on the task of bringing the critical story of the climate crisis to the world."

Paramount Pictures will release the film in 2017. It's produced by Richard Berge and Diane Weyermann, and executive produced by Jeff Skoll, Davis Guggenheim, Lawrence Bender, Laurie David, Scott Z. Burns and Lesley Chilcott.

The original documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, premiered at Sundance in 2006 and was a box-office and critical success. It went on to win two Oscars, for best documentary and best original song.

The sequel will be part of the The New Climate section at Sundance, the festival's first-ever program built around a specific theme — in this case, climate change and environmental preservation, a defining issue for Sundance Institute president and founder Robert Redford.

“We are honored to be working again with Al, Jeff Skoll and everyone at Participant on a film whose message is as urgent as ever. Al’s tireless efforts to bring about change continues to inspire all of us as we fight for the health of our world for future generations,” said a statement from Paramount chairman and CEO Brad Grey.

Gore also will appear on Sundance's Power of Story panel, a collaboration between Sundance Institute and The Redford Center, that also will feature former President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives, producer Heather Rae (Frozen River, RISE), social entrepreneur and philanthropist Jeff Skoll, and environmentalist and scientist Dr. David Suzuki.

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...een-blob-the-biggest-science-scam-in-history/

Trump Versus The Green Blob: The Biggest Science Scam In History
by James Delingpole
23 Dec 20160

“I’ve waited 40 years for this moment.”

In a congressional meeting room, somewhere on Capitol Hill, one of the world’s leading sceptical climate scientists, Dr. Tim Ball, is toasting the advent of the Trump administration.

“I don’t want to use the phrase tipping point because that’s a phrase that has been abused in the scientific area. But I think we’re on the verge of a dramatic shift,” Ball tells the small invited audience of journalists, scientists, think-tankers, lawyers and DC politicos. He’s talking about the war on the Green Blob.

Most of them are scarred veterans of the decades-long battle to expose the man-made global warming scare as what another speaker, Tony Heller, describes as “the biggest scientific deception in history.” Many have suffered personally and professionally for speaking out against the so-called “consensus.” Ball, for example, a distinguished Canadian professor of climatology, has exhausted all his retirement money defending a legal action brought against him by the notorious climate alarmist Michael Mann, creator of the discredited “Hockey Stick”. (You can hear more about Ball’s struggle for truth on my latest Delingpole podcast—he’s a fascinating, articulate man and he has an inspiring story to tell).

But with Trump’s inauguration it will be the beginning of the end for the Green Blob—that sinister cabal of corrupt politicians, UN- and EU-technocrats, bent scientists, shrill activists, rent-seeking corporatists, blood-sucking lawyers and gullible journalists which has held the world to ransom these last four decades by promoting the man-made climate change scare story and other, related environmental scams.

The protests will be fierce: the global decarbonisation industry alone is worth at least $1.5 trillion a year. So many snouts in such a vast trough—they’re not going to give up easily.

One man present, a member of one of Trump’s transition teams, describes it as the climate realists’ “Anzio Moment.” That is, the teams fighting the Green Blob now have their beach head with the arrival of Donald Trump. The only question now is not “if” they’re going to be able to break out; only “when”—and also “how long.”

If you’re a regular Breitbart reader, you’ll probably be under no illusion about just how loathsome the people in the Green Blob are. But just in case you’re not, in case you’re wondering: “Well, hang on. What if the ‘consensus’ scientists are right? What if man-made global warming is a serious problem? What if Donald Trump is about to ruin everything with his sinister right-wing anti-science agenda?” let me tell you just one story which shows why the forthcoming cleaning of the Augean stables (at institutions like NASA, NOAA and most especially the Environmental Protection Agency) is so very, very right and necessary.

The story begins in 2012 in sunny La Jolla, California. A group of key figures from the Green Blob—academics, professional activists, lawyers, scientists, PR agency heads—have gathered to discuss the heist of the century. Their plan is to terrorise big business with a form of environmentalist blackmail, which they will use, in the manner of a Mafia-style protection racket to bully their target companies (with the help of tame lawyers and complicitous government officials) into handing over millions, if not billions, of dollars. This Danegeld will end up being paid to environmental campaign groups of the kind they work for themselves, thus funding yet more vexatious, money-grubbing actions against still more blameless companies.

And the cleverest thing of all is, this heist isn’t even illegal. Environmentalists have been getting away with this sort of thing for years.

You actually know what happens next because you’ll have read it, splashed all over the mainstream media in what became a campaign called “Exxon Knew.” Hillary Clinton (who was then Secretary of State) demanded an investigation into it; a group of alarmist scientists wrote to President Obama demanding he launch a RICO prosecution of Exxon; two supposedly major journalistic exposes were published at Inside Climate News and the LA Times, then eagerly endorsed in such publications as Scientific American and the Guardian.

Sundry environmentalist politicians and activists weighed in with further demands for action, as I reported here.

These activists include Sharon Eubanks, a former US Department of Justice attorney who once helped bring a similar case against Big Tobacco; House Democrats Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier; Canadian eco-loon Bill McKibben (who talks, with characteristic wry understatement, of Exxon’s “sheer, profound, and – I think – unparalleled evil”); and, of course, Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse, another attorney determined to use lawfare to shut down the debate on climate change once and for all.

But what had Exxon had actually done to attract all this opprobrium? Short answer: nothing. But that was never the point. The entire scam—essentially blaming Exxon for knowing something about “global warming” it couldn’t possibly have known because, hey, nobody did at the time; they don’t even know now—was purely designed as a shakedown.

Next stage of the plan was for the politicized U.S. legal system to get involved. This it did earlier this year when the grimly inevitable Al Gore turned up in New York to grandstand at a meeting with a bunch of tame Attorneys General from Democrat states to discuss ‘the potential of commencing new investigations or joining ongoing investigations,’ on climate change.

New York AG Eric Schneiderman will appear with Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and United States Virgin Island Attorney General Claude Walker at 11:30 a.m. at his Manhattan office, 120 Broadway, 25th Floor.

Again this was all just for show. The main purpose, as one well familiar with the case explained to me in DC, was merely to put the frighteners on the chosen target of this campaign, ExxonMobil.

ExxonMobil had been carefully selected as the Green Blob’s shakedown victim because it seemed to fulfil all the necessary criteria. It was a huge oil company with masses of money to squander (its annual revenue is around $270 billion) on environmental pay outs; and, under its CEO Rex Tillerson, it had a track record of corporate cowardice (withdrawing funding from right-wing think tanks; failing to speak up for fossil fuels; kow-towing to greens) which meant that it was considered highly likely not to contest any court action but instead to settle.

The legal case against ExxonMobil would be based on the one used so successfully against Big Tobacco. (One of the key figures in the campaign against Big Tobacco, Stanton Glantz, was present to advise at the La Jolla meeting). Never mind that there were actually no serious similarities: the Big Tobacco companies clearly knew that cigarettes caused cancer; there was no similar knowledge that ExxonMobil possessed about “global warming” that it culpably withheld from its customers. The case, had it gone to court, would have been a nonsense. But that wasn’t the point. The point was, it was never meant to go to court, because ExxonMobil—it had been predicted by the Green Blob—would settle.

Once ExxonMobil had settled, the Green Blob schemed, all the other companies would settle too.

Except it didn’t turn out that way. ExxonMobil—quite remarkably, given Tillerson’s pusillanimity and cautiousness—refused to settle.

The La Jolla plan—which might still yet have stood a chance had Hillary been elected—is now certainly doomed to failure in the Trump era.

But by describing it I hope what I’ve succeeded in doing is giving you an indication of the extraordinary tentacular reach of the Green Blob. For years, the US – and the rest of the Western world—has afforded a climate in which Attorneys General and Senators and Secretaries of State and even Presidents can conspire with university professors and heads of government science institutions and environmental PR companies and green NGOs can exploit green issues in which to wage continual war on both the economy and the consumer, often enriching themselves in the process while the rest of us get poorer and more constrained by needless taxes and regulations.

“Oh come on!” these people have always said when you try to call them on it. “What kind of deranged conspiracy theorist would you have to be to suggest that all these different groups with different interests would be working together to lie about global warming?”

You really don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to believe this stuff, though. All you need is to be cognisant of the facts. These people are crooks. A lot of them should be in prison. In fact, funnily enough, that was the joke that got Tim Ball in trouble with Michael Mann. “He shouldn’t be in Penn State. He should be in the state pen,” Ball quipped.

Not just Michael Mann. They all should.

This scam is a disgrace and has gone on far too long. Trump’s destruction of the Green Blob will come not a moment too soon.

 

[The Bobster]

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering
Posted on December 28, 2016 by tonyheller

Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year | Climate Central

The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.

They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.

Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century

The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article.

The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)

The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database.

When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints.

1.They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data.

2.They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves.

Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data.

Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon.

This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS.

NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif

Gavin Schmidt at NASA explains very clearly why the US temperature record does not need to be adjusted.


You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.

One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale – and they haven’t found any yet.

NOAA has always known that the US is not warming.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

All of the claims in the Climate Central article are bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.

 

[The Bobster]

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...old-to-prevent-climate-change/#comment-347567

Philadelphians Brave The Cold To Prevent Climate Change
January 9, 2017 4:10 PM By Pat Loeb
Filed Under: Pat Loeb, Philadelphia
by Pat Loeb

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — More than 100 Philadelphians braved freezing weather to participate in a nationwide protest of four proposed cabinet picks who say they don’t believe in climate change.

A coalition of environmental groups marched from Senator Bob Casey’s office at 20th and Market to Senator Pat Toomey’s office at 17th and JFK to deliver petitions urging them to veto four nominees: Scott Pruitt for EPA, Rick Perry for Energy Secretary, Ryan Zinke for Interior and Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State.

Organizer Sam Rubin says all four have records of opposing environmental protection.

“We’re here to recommit to the struggle ahead of us in fighting for a livable planet for everyone, and we are sincere in our hope that Senators Casey and Toomey join us in that fight,” Rubin said.

Senator Casey has already criticized the choice of Scott Pruitt and his office says he’d consider the petitions.

Toomey’s office says he always keeps the thoughts of Pennsylvanians in mind when considering issues before the senate.

 

[sniffy]

Noam the Chump: Climate Change and Nuclear War, Most Dangerous Threats to the Human Species

Noam Chomsky: Climate Change and Nuclear War, Most Dangerous Threats to the Human Species

http://www.ecowatch.com/noam-chomsky-climate-change-nuclear-war-2131865192.html

Democracy Now! celebrated its 20th anniversary Monday night at the historic Riverside Church in New York City. Among those who addressed more than 2,000 attendants was world-renowned linguistic Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky spoke about the two most dangerous threats the human species faces today: the possibility of nuclear war and the accelerating destruction of human-fueled climate change. Chomsky also addressed the dangers of Donald Trump's climate change denialism—and what it means for the future of the human species.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUx6VCvnJBk

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/climate-science-rocked-by-another-scandal.php

Climate “Science” Rocked By Another Scandal
Posted on February 5, 2017 by John Hinderaker in Climate

A just-retired scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has blown the whistle on a scandal of epic proportions involving fake news ginned up by climate “scientists.” Dr. John Bates, who until the end of 2016 was one of NOAA’s top scientists, told the story to the Daily Mail:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

NOAA violated its own rules by publishing the report without subjecting it to required verification procedures–procedures that were designed by Dr. Bates himself.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

Of all the “fake news” stories that emerged in the last two years, this is undoubtedly the most important. More:

NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

This is just one of the tricks the NOAA “scientists” employed to exaggerate warming:

The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.

Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’

The Earth’s surface temperature record has been so hopelessly corrupted by “adjustments” made for political purposes by NOAA and other agencies that it likely can never be accurately reconstructed. This is a great loss to science. The Mail story suggests that evidence may have been destroyed to cover the tracks of NOAA’s activists:

Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

Sounds like they borrowed the computer from the IRS.

NOAA is a rogue, politicized agency, like so many others. It has defied a Congressional committee’s subpoena, and apparently lied to the committee:

NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

Heads need to roll. Donald Trump has his work cut out for him, to put it mildly.

 

[The Bobster]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-libe...e-for-the-climate-of-public-debate-1486336417

A Libel Suit Threatens Catastrophe for the Climate of Public Debate
Michael Mann sues to silence critics, and errant courts ignore the First Amendment to help him.
By Michael A. Carvin and Anthony Dick
Updated Feb. 5, 2017 8:16 p.m. ET

The First Amendment provides robust protection for political and scientific debate, but it faces a new threat from a climate activist determined to silence his critics. In a case pending before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Penn State professor Michael Mann is waging an aggressive campaign of lawfare, accusing of defamation those who dare to question his work. So far, the courts have given this assault on free speech a green light.

Mr. Mann is famous as the creator of the “hockey stick” graph, which portrays a dramatic trend in global warming over the past century. Numerous critics have cast doubt on the quality and accuracy of his work. They argue that his historical temperature proxies are unreliable, his data presentation misleading, and his statistical techniques skewed.

Even among those who support the theory of global warming, some have singled out Mr. Mann’s work as sloppy and exaggerated. David Hand, a former president of Britain’s Royal Statistical Society, has written that Mr. Mann’s technique “exaggerated the size of the blade at the end of the hockey stick,” which corresponds to the 20th-century temperature rise.

Not content to answer his critics in the public square, Mr. Mann has sued them. One target of his lawsuit is the political magazine National Review, which published a 270-word blog post criticizing Mr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent . . . ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” His lawsuit objects to the magazine’s decision to quote a critic who wrote that Mr. Mann “could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

National Review moved to dismiss the suit, citing a phalanx of Supreme Court precedent. The Constitution obviously does not allow crippling damages to be imposed for voicing one’s opinion, however vehemently or caustically. Punishing such criticism because a jury disagrees with it does not aid the search for truth, but impedes it by stifling conflicting views. As the liberal Justice William Brennan observed: “Truth may not be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions where discussion of public affairs is concerned.” Such speech “is the essence of self-government.”

As a federal court once put it in the particular context of scientific controversies: “More papers, more discussions, better data, and more satisfactory models—not larger awards of damages—mark the path toward superior understanding of the world around us.” Even a meritless defamation suit can be an effective weapon to intimidate critics and shut down debate through ruinous litigation costs.

In this case the trial court refused to dismiss Mr. Mann’s libel suit. Judge Natalia Combs Greene ruled that the defamation claims were “likely” to succeed because “to call his work a sham or to question his intellect and reasoning is tantamount to an accusation of fraud,” when in fact Mr. Mann “has been investigated by several bodies (including the EPA)” which determined that his research was “sound and not based on misleading information.” For procedural reasons, the case was reassigned to Judge Frederick Weisberg, who largely adopted Judge Green’s reasoning.

Appellate courts, which exist to reverse such legal error, in this case compounded it. National Review was supported in friend-of-the-court briefs by such unlikely allies as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Washington Post and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Yet a panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals—Judges Vanessa Ruiz,Corinne Beckwith and Catharine Easterly—held in December that Mr. Mann’s suit should proceed to a jury. The court again relied on various “official” investigations that had cleared Mr. Mann of misconduct, including an inquiry by the federal government. Speech that disagrees with the government is at the core of the First Amendment’s protection—though not in this court’s topsy-turvy world.

National Review has filed a petition for rehearing along with its co-defendants, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. If the full court of appeals does not correct the error and end this assault on the First Amendment, the case will doubtless proceed to the Supreme Court.

Those hoping Mr. Mann prevails because they agree with him about global warming are missing the point. If he succeeds in diminishing the right to free speech, he and his fellow climate activists have just as much to lose. Mr. Mann has attacked his critics for peddling “pure scientific fraud,” engaging in what he calls “the fraudulent denial of climate change,” and taking “corporate payoffs for knowingly lying about the threat climate change posed to humanity.” He accused Fox News of trying to “mislead its viewers” through a “deceptive” report about climate change.

None of this is particularly polite, but it is common in the cut-and-thrust of public debate. If such caustic criticism is now to be fair game for legal action, big oil companies and other well-heeled interests can launch their own lawsuits asking juries in Texas or Oklahoma to silence Mr. Mann and his allies.

The logic of Mr. Mann’s position threatens to convert political and scientific debate into a litigation free-for-all, with all sides seeking to sue one another into submission instead of resolving differences through the free exchange of ideas. For those who care about the spirit of open inquiry at the heart of the scientific enterprise, it is scarcely possible to imagine a greater legal disaster than the prospect of Mr. Mann’s succeeding on his claims.

 

[The Bobster]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/02/martin-armstrong/global-warming-4/

More Evidence Against Global Warming Surfaces
By Martin Armstrong
Armstrong Economics
February 28, 2017

While the Democrats are doing everything to block any alteration to the regulation and the tax scheme supported by Global Warming theories, the refreshing rise of Donald Trump in this arena is allowing free speech to be heard for the first time in more than a decade since Al Gore started this nonsense. This idea that man is the sole cause of climate change and CO2 is the devil, has been so seriously wrong. The Global Warming crowd has been attempting to silence any other research whatsoever.

I have sought to explain that the Sun is a thermal dynamic system, meaning it beats like your heart to a cycle of about 300 years. Even NASA has come out and had to admit: “[In] recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet,” It is amazing for I attended a lecture by scientists from Harvard nearly 30 years ago where the finding of a study into the ice core samples from the North Pole were provided. When I studied the data, I was stunned. It aligned with the 309.6-year cycle of the Economic Confidence Model.

The data contributed to my understand about the rise and fall of civilizations. The climate change turning back toward a cold period caused (1) famine with a decline in food production, and (2) migration.

Researchers from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Northwestern University have just published the results of a study which seems to confirm the “chaotic Solar System” model. This theory has long been postulated that the orbit of planets are also not perfect and constant, but are “chaotic” insofar as the planets do interact with their gravity fields and as such, the orbits do change. Much as the moon causes the ocean to move creating high and low tide with its gravitational field, the interaction between planets themselves have had a similar impact on the climate of the earth over the centuries. This has been the type of research the Global Warming crowd have acted like fascists attempting to outlaw all research that disputes their claims.

The study examined 90-million-year-old layers of sedimentary rock in Colorado. They searched for fluctuations in the levels of minerals that illustrated various climate patterns. This study the researchers claim is conclusive proof of unstable planetary orbits:

“Other studies have suggested the presence of chaos based on geologic data. But this is the first unambiguous evidence, made possible by the availability of high-quality, radioisotopic dates and the strong astronomical signal preserved in the rocks.”

We have a dynamic universe and the arrogant assumption that humans can actually alter the climate is just not supported by the evidence. Sure we can throw our trash out on the street and not bath and that will help create disease within the human community. However, that will not change summer into winter. The entire data series used by the Global Warming crowd is only from the mid-1800s and that is like looking at the Dow for the past 10 days and concluding it only goes up.

Freedom of Speech is essential in all fields, especially science. We need a fresh and open investigation otherwise, we are just ignorant and assume the Earth is flat because heaven is up and hell is down so there can be nothing round. Nothing in this universe is constant – we live in a dynamic environment. It is time to stop the nonsense and explore the real universe. That is how we learn. The argument that the Earth had to be flat was the lack of understanding of gravity and they burned Bruno alive at the stake for saying simply that the sun was the center of our solar system – not the earth. The Global Warming fascists are at it again and have sought to prosecute anyone who disagrees with them.

 

[The Bobster]

http://usjournalreview.com/30000-sc...-hoax/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

30,000 Scientists Agree: Climate Change is a Hoax

Although liberals are known for lying about anything and everything in order to sway the weak minded, their biggest lie of all comes in the form of climate change.

Environmental propaganda is used as the basis of all liberal policies they push on the country. Using statistics such as 97% of Scientists support global warming.

Turns out that 97% is based on specifically chosen surveys that portray what they want you to think. In reality 30,000 scientists say climate change is definitely a hoax concocted by Democrats such as Al Gore.

Via Truth and Action:

Long ago, Al Gore delivered us “an inconvenient truth” about climate change. Ironically, the most inconvenient thing about it may be that it’s not true at all.

Debunking the “97 percent” lie on top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.

And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.

 

[The Bobster]

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...-54M-Green-Energy-Ponzi-Scheme-415272753.html

Temple University Graduate Admits to Running $54M Green-Energy Ponzi Scheme
The scam allegedly ran from 2005 until 2009, even after the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Wragg and Knorr's Bala Cynwyd-based Mantria Corp.
Published at 7:07 PM EST on Mar 2, 2017 | Updated at 7:16 PM EST on Mar 2, 2017

Temple University graduate Troy Wragg, seen in a rap music video in 2011 paid for through his company, Mantria.


A Temple University graduate admitted Thursday that he ran a $54 million Ponzi scheme built on false promises of green energy technology that would turn trash into fuel and "carbon-negative" housing developments, neither of which were ever fully developed.

Troy Wragg, now living in Georgia, pleaded guilty in federal court in Philadelphia on Thursday to conspiracy and securities fraud. His college girlfriend, Amanda Knorr, pleaded guilty last year, while Wayde McKelvy, a 54-year-old securities salesman from Colorado, is scheduled to go on trial in September.

The scam allegedly ran from 2005 until 2009, even after the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Wragg and Knorr's Bala Cynwyd-based Mantria Corp. They were ordered in 2012 to pay $37 million each.

Two months before the SEC civil lawsuit, the company was publicly recognized for its stated commitment to "help mitigate global warming'' by former President Bill Clinton's Clinton Global Initiative. The company was cited for its plans to develop the biochar technology that it said would sequester carbon dioxide and reduce emissions in developing countries. Wragg appeared on stage with Clinton at the event in September 2009.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Livermore wrote in court filings that the company didn't set out to defraud investors but began lying after the Pennsylvania-based company began having financial problems.

"When Mantria began to experience financial problems early on, little lies to keep Mantria afloat begat bigger lies which begat even bigger lies until Mantria was nothing but a hollow shell of what was promised to investors,'' Livermore wrote.

Prosecutors say the trio lied to investors, saying their "biochar'' technology and "carbon-negative'' housing in Tennessee made millions of dollars, but they had almost no earnings, and the three used the money to repay earlier investors and kept some for themselves.

McKelvy, who prosecutors say has never been licensed to sell securities, raised money through his Speed of Wealth seminars in Colorado, Las Vegas and elsewhere, including one that featured a speech from former Broncos quarterback John Elway.

McKelvy allegedly told investors that Mantria was the next Microsoft and that it was ``on the cusp of a revolutionary technology that's going to change the world, and you guys can benefit from it by putting money in and getting stinkin' wealthy.''

Prosecutors say the housing developments that Mantria told investors would serve as collateral were never finished -- the sites lacked drinking water and some may have contained unexploded artillery shells. Mantria then promised returns of more than 500 percent based on trash-to-fuel technology they said they had orders to sell.

The company had a site testing the production of biochar in Dunlap, Tennessee, but prosecutors say the company never had a patent for the technology to sell the systems and lied about how much it was producing.

 

[The Bobster]

http://nypost.com/2017/03/28/schnei...ing-emails-with-pro-climate-change-activists/

Schneiderman accused of hiding emails with pro-climate change activists
By Julia Marsh
March 28, 2017 | 10:38pm

Eric Schneiderman
Getty Images


State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is trying to hide *e-mails about his support of a climate-change policy that’s being targeted by President Trump, a conservative group charged in Manhattan court Tuesday.

The organization, E&E Legal, sued Schneiderman last year claiming he led a group of AGs in silencing climate-change skeptics.

The group says Schneiderman is refusing to disclose documents that show collaboration with pro-climate change activists.

The AG is entitled to keep intra-office communication private, but must hand over information sent to outside parties. At issue is an Oct 2015 e-mail that Schneiderman’s aide Christina Harvey sent to her boss and an outside political consultant, Kristie Stiles.

E&E’s lawyer, Francis Menton, says the AG’s office waived any right to keeping the documents private by sending them to the operative. The AG’s lawyers say Harvey just wanted Stiles to print the e-mail, and didn’t intend for her to read it.

The judge said she’ll rule on the matter in the coming weeks.

 

[sniffy]

Bill Nye the Science Hoax to host Sci-March against Trump

Bill Nye the Science Hoax to host Sci-March against Trump

Two Problems:
1. He is a White Male (not everybody is convinced that he has two stones)

2. He did a fake experiment with Al Gore.


http://constitution.com/bill-nye-deemed-white-male-lead-lefty-science-march/
“…when the announcement was made he would chair the ‘March For Science,’ organizers quickly freaked out that having Nye heading up their even might be reinforcing the stereotype that all scientists are old, white men.
“(Again, Bill Nye is not a scientist, but okay.)
‘I love Bill Nye,’ said Stephani Page, a member of the March’s board, who was critical of what she considered the March’s lack of diversity. ‘But I do feel comfortable saying to you what I said to the steering committee: He is a white male, and in that way he does represent the status quo of science, of what it is to be a scientist.’

http://junkscience.com/2013/07/bill...obal-warming-experiment-in-climate-101-video/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10...chool-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/
Readers may recall my previous essay where I pointed out how Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 Video, used in his “24 hours of climate reality”, had some serious credibility issues with editing things to make it appear as if they had actually performed the experiment, when they clearly did not. It has taken me awhile to replicate the experiment. Delays were a combination of acquisition and shipping problems, combined with my availability since I had to do this on nights and weekends. I worked initially using the original techniques and equipment, and I’ve replicated the Climate 101 experiment in other ways using improved equipment. I’ve compiled several videos. My report follows.
First. as a refresher, here’s the Climate 101 video again:

 

[The Bobster]

http://nypost.com/2017/04/28/times-columnist-blasted-by-nasty-left-for-climate-change-piece/

Times columnist blasted by ‘nasty left’ for climate change piece
By Chris Perez
April 28, 2017 | 11:27pm | Updated

Bret Stephens
Tamara Beckwith


A New York Times columnist who was “harangued” for months by “bullying Trump supporters” says he’s now being blasted by the “nasty left” — after he penned a piece about how absurd it was to blindly support climate change, without listening to both sides of the argument.

Former Wall Street Journal writer Bret Stephens has now managed to draw ire from the leftist libtards after his column ran online Friday.

As a noted “never Trumper” and climate skeptic, he has seen his fair share of hate mail and Twitter trolls over the past year-and-a-half — but nothing like what he’s endured since his article was posted, he says.

“After 20 months of being harangued by bullying Trump supporters , I’m reminded that the nasty left is no different. Perhaps worse,” Stephens tweeted Friday afternoon, as the hateful messages kept rolling in.

“Go eat dog d—s,” fumed one Twitter user.

“When is the Times going to get rid of you?” another asked.

Stephens even managed to tick off fellow journalists.

“You’re a s–thead. a crybaby lil f–kin weenie. a massive twat too,” tweeted Libby Watson, staff writer at Gizmodo. (E-mail her employer!)

“I’m gonna lose my mind,” seethed (((Eve Peyser))), politics writer at Vice.

“The ideas ppl like @BretStephensNYT espouse are violently hateful & should not be given a platform by @NYTimes,” she whined.

In the column, Stephens never states that he believes climate change is a farce. He simply asserts that people should look at claims from both supporters and deniers, in the attempt to get all the facts.

“Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities,” he writes.

“That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.”

Stephens even describes how he knows people will blast him for the piece, despite the fact he’s arguing for both sides.

“By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy,” he says. “As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate ‘not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.'”

Describing the idea in another way, Stephens says: “Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong.

“Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts,” he adds. “None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.”

But social media users didn’t care, with some — including several scientists — going so far as to order a subscription boycott of the Times on Friday.

“Each and every one of us should fully boycott the NY Times — don’t link to them, don’t click on their links. Their actions are inexcusable,” wrote one Twitter user. “You cannot be an ostensible paper-of-record and allow a science denier to spread propaganda.”

Adriana Heguy, a genomics scientist and professor of pathology at NYU, urged her colleagues to scrap their subscriptions, as well.

“Composing my letter to the editor today and canceling @nytimes,” she tweeted. “‘Balance’ means a VALID alternative opinion, not pseudoscience. I’m so sad.”

A petition was even created on Change.org asking the Times to fire Stephens. It had already garnered more than 25,000 signatures by 11 p.m. Friday.

“The issue is not that climate denial makes New York Times readers uncomfortable,” the description reads. “The issue is that climate denial relies on a foundation of lies. To present lies as if they were reasoned opinion compromises the impartiality, accuracy, and integrity of The New York Times.”

 

[The Bobster]

http://nypost.com/2017/05/01/times-subscribers-are-fleeing-in-wake-of-climate-change-column/

Times subscribers are fleeing in wake of climate change column
By Chris Perez
May 1, 2017 | 1:06am | Updated

People are still hating on New York Times columnist Bret Stephens — with a “#ShowYourCancellation” movement growing on social media over the weekend — following his controversial piece on climate change.

“I’ve been a @nytimes loyalist for over 15 years. But hiring a ‘climate agnostic’ has gone too far ,” Heather Randell tweeted Sunday. “I’m canceling. #showyourcancellation.”

Beth Holbrook wrote, “Cancelled @nytimes subscription. As a scientist , I take offense at BS opinion pieces misrepresenting scientific facts #ShowYourCancellation.”

Marlene Amaro added, “Trusted NYT all my life……oh well.”

Stephens, who worked at the Wall Street Journal before arriving at the Times earlier this month, penned his very first column for the paper last week — which was titled, “Climate of Complete Certainty.”

It ran online Friday and in print the next day.

In it, Stephens argued that “claiming total certainty about the science” of climate change — and not accepting both sides of the argument — ultimately “traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong.”

While he didn’t give his opinion on the subject, the piece sparked overwhelming outrage from what he described as “the nasty left.”

The furor remained throughout the weekend, with countless media outlets, journalists, scientists and others calling on the Times to fire Stephens.

Many canceled their subscriptions and then posted proof online — taking pictures of the paper’s emailed responses to them leaving.

“We’re sorry to see you go and hope we may be able to serve you again in the future,” the messages read.

But not everyone was scrapping their subscriptions.

Tom Nichols, a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College and an adjunct professor at the Harvard Extension School, was one of several people to come to Stephens’ defense Sunday, as he continued to be hounded by social media users.

“I’ve read the @BretStephensNYT piece multiple times. It never said what its critics claimed, and now to say this is pure hysteria,” Nichols tweeted.

Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote: “Readers cancelling @nytimes cuz of @BretStephensNYT are mirror image of Breitbarters. They don’t want debate; want prejudices confirmed.”

Will (((Federman))), mananging editor at The Tylt, added: “What if you think that Bret Stephens column is stupid and the NYT is still a good paper?”

 

[sniffy]

Zog Geographic

Zog Geographic

Not only can they exterminate Palestine one settlement at a time; but just as quickly, revise the Map at National Geographic. Susan Goldberg, Editor in Chief would not say such a thing, since there is already a vast agenda that taints every story. Her editor’s letter, March 2017, “On the Side of Science” mentions that “In the past three years, this magazine has run 34 stories on climate change. That’s quite an obsession; only two editions in the last three years don’t mention, directly, the biggest fraud of all time.
The usual business of slush funds, tax exempt racketeering, political corruption and Think tank appointments must be running out of gas.

Climatologist Emeritus
Sniffy


On Climate Change (and Everything Else), We’re on the Side of Facts

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/03/editors-note-climate-change/

In the past three years, this magazine has run 34 stories on climate change—including a special issue devoted entirely to the topic.
Our commitment is ongoing. In the April issue, to mark Earth Day, we’ll publish a guide that separates fact from fallacy on climate change and a feature story on how rising temperatures are affecting Alaska. Later this year we’ll offer looks at the Arctic, Antarctica, the Galápagos Islands, and other places at risk as the world warms. Our television channel is airing a documentary film and a three-part series on water issues.
And that doesn’t count the hundreds of climate stories we have published on nationalgeographic.com.
Covering our climate—where we keep setting records for the hottest year—is one of the most important things we can do. It’s especially crucial in an era when some people claim that there are no “facts” and basic science is loudly questioned without embarrassment.
At National Geographic we are proudly nonpartisan. But there are a few matters on which we do take sides:
• We are on the side of facts.
• We are on the side of science.
• We are on the side of the planet.
We promise that we will continue to report—factually and fairly—on how climate change is altering the Earth
Those who deny climate change receive a lot of attention, but the vast majority of Americans acknowledge the reality of the problem. Nearly two-thirds of respondents told Gallup last year that they are worried about global warming—the highest figure since 2008.
To help keep you current on developments, we’re expanding our environmental coverage across publishing platforms. We’ll have deeply reported magazine stories, brought to life with exceptional photography, graphics, and maps. On nationalgeographic.com, you’ll find topical stories every day, as well as a climate change reference guide. And on our social media accounts, our contributors are providing compelling views of climate change from all points of the globe.
We are committed to understanding, and to helping you understand, how best to care for this planet. Perhaps philosopher Eric Hoffer put it best: “In a time of drastic change it is the learners who inherit the future. The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists.”
Thank you for reading National Geographic.