ClimateGate busts things wide open

[jackspratt]

Ah! .......... that must be Plan D - deny, deny, deny.

But if you don't stay un-frenzied, you will never be able to "walk away from the discussion as the Victor."

[rick]

Climate fact of the week .......

Rain in winter on the Greenland icecap has increased from 2 days a season to 12 days a season over a 33 year period. This melts snow on the icecap and also darkens the surface, meaning less heat is reflected back into the air.

[Lone Star]

Ah! .......... that must be Plan D - deny, deny, deny.

. . .

Plan D is LIE. It occurred days before your conclusion/guess/classification/statement.

Local brigadier, chief UdonMap MMCC Believer and twice-failed Udon merchant co-opted a news graphic and lied in the headline.

[Lone Star]

.

Stop the anti-climate science totalitarians

Date: March 9, 2019
Source: Paul Driessen

They want to upend and transform America, but demand No Debate on underlying “science”

Democrats, climate campaigners and renewable energy interests are in full outrage mode over news that President Trump intends to launch a Presidential Committee on Climate Science. He should do it now.

The PCCS would, at long last, review and question the “dangerous manmade climate change” reports by federal agencies and investigations funded by them. The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.

No way! the climate alarmists rant. How dare you question our disaster claims? Our settled science?

No! How dare YOU use those claims to justify your agenda – and your continued efforts to bludgeon and silence us into submission – without letting anyone examine, much less debate, your supposed evidence?

For years, you have loudly and incessantly asserted that the United States and world must end fossil fuel use, or we are “doomed.” Now you’re demanding that the United States completely upend its energy production, transportation and manufacturing sectors, housing and office buildings, and entire economy. You want the federal government to control and limit our lives, choices and living standards – and redistribute our wealth, even to those “unwilling to work,” according to confiscatory socialist principles.

For years, you Democrats, environmentalists, Deep State bureaucrats, government-grant-dependent scientists, news and social media have colluded to censor and silence manmade climate chaos skeptics, and stifle any debate. All of you have huge financial, reputational and power stakes in this.

Your Climate Industrial Complex is a $2-trillion-per-year global behemoth. Your Green New Deal would cost this nation up to $93 trillion by 2030 – sticking every US family with a $65,000 annual bill.

And still you insist that the science is settled, that there is no room for discussion, that we must act immediately to “save the planet” from climate and extreme weather disaster. Now you want to wrap up your kangaroo court proceedings – with our side given no opportunity to present our evidence, defend fossil fuels and carbon dioxide, examine your alleged evidence, or cross-examine your experts.

If your evidence is so solid and unimpeachable, you should be more than happy to lay it on the table, subject it to scrutiny, question our experts, and let us question yours – extensively and mercilessly.

After all, the future of our planet is at stake – or so you claim. The future of our country certainly is.

Your radical agenda and actions are un-American, totalitarian, anti-science, and contrary to our most fundamental principles of open, robust debate – on one of the most critical issues in US history.

A large majority of Americans believe our planet has warmed and is warming. No one denies that. And thank goodness, or we’d still be stuck in the Little Ice Age. But that’s not the issue. The issues are: Is any likely future warming going to be disastrous? And are humans and fossil fuels to blame?

You claim the answer is Yes. Again, where is your proof? If you have any actual evidence, lay it on the table. Show us exactly where the natural forces that have driven countless climate changes throughout history end – and where the human factors begin. Quantify them. Don’t give us computer models that simply reflect the assumptions that went into them. Present solid, Real World evidence. If you have any.

While you’re at it, you also need to prove that dismantling America’s energy and economic system will make one whit of difference in our climate and weather (assuming for the sake of argument that human carbon dioxide emissions now drive climate and weather) – when China, India and other countries are building thousands of coal and natural gas fueled power plants, and millions of cars and trucks. Their emissions already dwarf ours. And they are not going to give up fossil fuels for decades, if ever.

Prove your GND energy system can actually power America, without destroying jobs, living standards, manufacturing, health, prosperity and environment. As I have said over, over and over, it cannot be done. Your alternatives are not workable, affordable, green, renewable, ethical, ecological or sustainable.

Here’s just a few of the Real World climate science facts that alarmists don’t want exposed or discussed.

Temperatures have risen by tenths or hundredths of a degree in recent years – less than the margin of error, and most of the “highest temperatures on record” have been in urban areas, where local manmade heat skews the data. We’re also experiencing record cold and snow in numerous locations.

The average prediction by 102 climate models is now a full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites are measuring. Michael Mann’s climate model could concoct hockey sticks from telephone numbers and other random numbers. Are we supposed to trust these models on critical energy policy?

Violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) averaged 56 per year from 1950 to 1985. But from 1986 to 2018 only 34 per year touched down in the USA on average – and for the first time ever not one did in 2018. The March 3 Alabama tornado was tragic, and the 2-mile-wide 2013 Oklahoma City monster lasted 40 minutes. But the 1925 Tri-State Twister was a mile wide, traveled a record 220 miles, lasted a record 3.5 hours, and killed a record 695 people.

Hurricanes becoming more frequent and intense? From 1920 through 1940, ten Category 3-5 hurricanes made US landfall; from 1960 through 1980, eleven; 1980 through 2000, ten; 2001 through 2018, nine. There is no trend.

Moreover, Harvey and Irma in 2017 were the first category 3-5 hurricanes to make U.S. landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the Civil War era.

A warmer Arctic? The Washington Post did report that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” But that was in 1922!

Polar bear populations are the highest on record: between 24,500 and 28,500 or more of them!

Oceans cannot become “more acidic,” because they are not and have never been acidic. Earth’s oceans are slightly alkaline. That slight alkalinity has decreased slightly (from 8.2 on the pH scale to 8.1) over the past few decades. But they are not getting acidic … and won’t anytime soon.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the miracle molecule without which most life on Earth would cease to exist. In fact, the more CO2 in the air, the faster and better crop, forest and grassland plants grow – and the better they can withstand droughts, diseases, and damage from insects and viruses. In fact, a slightly warmer planet with more atmospheric CO2 would be tremendously beneficial for plants, wildlife and humanity. A colder planet with less carbon dioxide would greatly reduce arable land extent, growing seasons, wildlife habitats, crop production and our ability to feed humanity.

Millions of Americans are exasperated with Republicans like Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois, who recently whined that it’s “just not worth the fight anymore” to battle climate alarmism – and protect our nation and our children’s future. Elected officials like him need to get spinal implants, learn the Climate Facts, or resign and turn their seats over to someone who will fight for us. That’s why we need the PCCS.

It’s why they hope the President Trump we elected to clean out the Deep State … show why manmade climate chaos claims are pseudo-science … and Make America Great Again for decades to come … will demonstrate his toughness and leadership right now, when we so need him to.

We need to tell Mr. Trump: Please stand up to these Climate Totalitarians who want to destroy our nation, in the name of saving the planet from climate disasters that exist only in computer models, Hollywood movies, and self-serving assertions by the Climate Industrial Complex. Alarmists have controlled the climate narrative thus far. Now we need to give other experts a chance to weigh in, loud and clear.

Appoint your Presidential Committee on Climate Science now! Give sound, honest science a chance.

Agree.

Show us how, specifically, you're going to slow, stop reverse mmcc.

[Udon Map]

The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.

Really? A committee comprised of people who share the same point of view? Gee, I wonder what their conclusion will be.

If you're really interested in an objective analysis, why not have half of the committee made up of skeptics and half of believers in man-made climate change problems. And two co-chairs, similarly opposed. Then, at least, there could be some intellectual debate on whatever facts/evidence are presented. If the committee is made up only of skeptics, why bother?

[Lone Star]

The committee would be led by Dr. Will Happer, a highly respected scientist and well known skeptic – not of climate change, but of manmade climate chaos. He would be joined by other prominent experts – of whom there are many – who share his doubts.

Really? A committee comprised of people who share the same point of view? Gee, I wonder what their conclusion will be.

If you're really interested in an objective analysis, why not have half of the committee made up of skeptics and half of believers in man-made climate change problems. And two co-chairs, similarly opposed. Then, at least, there could be some intellectual debate on whatever facts/evidence are presented. If the committee is made up only of skeptics, why bother?

Regardless of who is on the committee, I would hold them to the same standards as I hold the believer/alarmists. Show us why, how and when with specific measurable results.

As of today, reality is on the side of the skeptics -- for all of the reasons I've stated previously -- but most importantly because their dire predictions are wrong. Their deadlines pass without even a whimper.

[Lone Star]

.

NEW GLOBAL-WARMING REPORT REVEALS POLAR BEARS THRIVING

Date: March 10, 2019
Source: WND

'The facts on the ground make their claims look silly'

A new report finds that, contrary to the predictions of many scientists, polar bears are actually thriving.

“Numbers are so high that Inuit leaders have been pleading with the Canadian government for more polar bear population control as violent attacks against native populations have dramatically risen in recent years,”  pointed out Marc Morano at the Climate Depot website, which presents evidence countering the claim that mankind is causing catastrophic global warming.

A decade ago, many scientists predicted the population of polar bears would be down by 67 percent about now.

But the report by zoologist Susan Crockford, writing for the non-partisan Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank, found that the bears are thriving.

Another alarmist prediction torn to shreds.

[Udon Map]

Regardless of who is on the committee, I would hold them to the same standards as I hold the believer/alarmists. Show us why, how and when with specific measurable results.

Results don't matter, measurable or not. The skeptics won't believe the believers/alarmists no matter what any evidence shows, and vice versa. That's why you need both perspectives on any committee or it's a waste of time.

[Doodoo]

1966 that there were 10,000 polar bears in the world; in 2006, the same source estimated that the population had risen to 20,000-25,000 bears

Bring on the ALARMISTS Bravo and Thanks without them we could have results the other way, a decline of numbers

[Lone Star]

Regardless of who is on the committee, I would hold them to the same standards as I hold the believer/alarmists. Show us why, how and when with specific measurable results.

Results don't matter, measurable or not. The skeptics won't believe the believers/alarmists no matter what any evidence shows, and vice versa. That's why you need both perspectives on any committee or it's a waste of time.

The alarmists in past administrations already had their say. If the new committee is evaluating those past claims, data and models, and they claim those past data components to be inaccurate, I expect them to tell me who, what, when, where, why and how. The committee will succeed or fail based on that for me. If you choose to discredit it or disbelieve before they get started, you may.

[Doodoo]

Why do we have to explain anything to yourself?
I am not here to satisfy you who what where why when You need to look elsewhere for those answers or research your self if you are interested which I dought

[Lone Star]

Why do we have to explain anything to yourself?
I am not here to satisfy you who what where why when You need to look elsewhere for those answers or research your self if you are interested which I dought

Emotional frenzy.

I was referring to the government committee. Doodoo better.



Have a great week!

[Doodoo]

Heah if you would give us the address of this Committee maybe we could write in also and get the answers to all these questions
Sure would like to meet the Committee

cc Mr T

[Udon Map]

Regardless of who is on the committee, I would hold them to the same standards as I hold the believer/alarmists. Show us why, how and when with specific measurable results.

Results don't matter, measurable or not. The skeptics won't believe the believers/alarmists no matter what any evidence shows, and vice versa. That's why you need both perspectives on any committee or it's a waste of time.

The alarmists in past administrations already had their say. If the new committee is evaluating those past claims, data and models, and they claim those past data components to be inaccurate, I expect them to tell me who, what, when, where, why and how. The committee will succeed or fail based on that for me. If you choose to discredit it or disbelieve before they get started, you may.

Really? The extremist believers in the past controlled things, so now let's let the extremist skeptics have a chance at control? How about we just ignore the past and look for accuracy, wherever it leads?

[Lone Star]

Regardless of who is on the committee, I would hold them to the same standards as I hold the believer/alarmists. Show us why, how and when with specific measurable results.

Results don't matter, measurable or not. The skeptics won't believe the believers/alarmists no matter what any evidence shows, and vice versa. That's why you need both perspectives on any committee or it's a waste of time.

The alarmists in past administrations already had their say. If the new committee is evaluating those past claims, data and models, and they claim those past data components to be inaccurate, I expect them to tell me who, what, when, where, why and how. The committee will succeed or fail based on that for me. If you choose to discredit it or disbelieve before they get started, you may.

Really? The extremist believers in the past controlled things, so now let's let the extremist skeptics have a chance at control? How about we just ignore the past and look for accuracy, wherever it leads?

Who said anything about control? I never indicated or insinuated that I would accept their findings. You're trying to put words in my posts.

I will look upon their claims with the same scrutiny that I have for believers. How many times and how many ways do I have to state it?

[Lone Star]

Believers have many problems. All of which I have enumerated in the past. Here are the worst.

1. Their dire predictions don't come true.

2. They don't talk in the language of the People. Many are educators, but they fail to communicate to the classroom.

3. They get repeatedly caught fudging their models, data, etc.

4. They can't provide specific details that back up their claims regarding MMCC and effects on the environment.

5. They can't outline in detail HOW they are going to reverse, stop or slow climate changes.

6. Recently, scientist believers admitted that they probably can't do anything about reversing, stopping or slowing climate changes.

7. Reality does not compare favorably with their claims.

If they could rectify all of those things, they might have a shot at convincing the majority of people that they can reverse, stop or slow climate change. Until that happens, there will -- rightfully -- be skeptics.

What other issue in business, in a courtroom, in a city, in a boardroom -- even in a family discussion -- would just be accepted with all of those pitfalls? NONE by anyone who can think rationally and use critical reasoning skills.

[Udon Map]

Regardless of who is on the committee, I would hold them to the same standards as I hold the believer/alarmists. Show us why, how and when with specific measurable results.

Results don't matter, measurable or not. The skeptics won't believe the believers/alarmists no matter what any evidence shows, and vice versa. That's why you need both perspectives on any committee or it's a waste of time.

The alarmists in past administrations already had their say. If the new committee is evaluating those past claims, data and models, and they claim those past data components to be inaccurate, I expect them to tell me who, what, when, where, why and how. The committee will succeed or fail based on that for me. If you choose to discredit it or disbelieve before they get started, you may.

Really? The extremist believers in the past controlled things, so now let's let the extremist skeptics have a chance at control? How about we just ignore the past and look for accuracy, wherever it leads?

Who said anything about control? I never indicated or insinuated that I would accept their findings. You're trying to put words in my posts.

I will look upon their claims with the same scrutiny that I have for believers. How many times and how many ways do I have to state it?

Yes. that's what you said.

The alarmists in past administrations already had their say. If the new committee is evaluating those past claims, data and models, and they claim those past data components to be inaccurate....

Is that your idea of the committee's goal? To evaluate past claims? Doesn't matter what happened in the past. This isn't about taking turns.

Just throw out all the past information and let's look for accurate information now. If we're interested in obtaining accurate information, the committee needs to have both sides represented.

[Lone Star]

Is that your idea of the committee's goal? To evaluate past claims? Doesn't matter what happened in the past. This isn't about taking turns.

Just throw out all the past information and let's look for accurate information now. If we're interested in obtaining accurate information, the committee needs to have both sides represented.

The claims of the recent past by believers hasn't changed. Their dire predictions are still documented, and their philosophy and claims are as current today as the UN alarmism in 1989.

In a perfect non-partisan world concerned with truth on all sides, you would be correct. It is best to have differing views everywhere. However, post-Obama America echoes his mantra: "Elections have consequences." He appropriated Andrew Jackson's "Victor" declaration and brought it into the 21st century.

Not even college campuses, Robert Mueller's Investigation and the banging of pots and pans on Internet forums by the intolerant promote an environment of free speech, fairness and tolerance. Do I think that's good? No, but it's about survival in the current climate. When one side is following rules, respects the law, tries to be ethical and polite and makes efforts to be civil -- but the other side is not -- there can be no good outcome.

Since I'm interested in the truth, I'll view any findings by the committee with as critical an eye as I have been with claims by believers, and that will be true no matter who is appointed to serve.

[Lone Star]

.

Truly Bad People

Source: Townhall
March 10, 2019

Fear is a great motivator, as is anger. Those two emotions are among the most powerful and destructive feelings that human beings can experience. Politicians use them, to varying degrees, regularly and effectively. But rarely has a political party so openly embraced these two sentiments as the argument for supporting them. Democrats no longer use fear and anger as tactics, they’re now both the means and the end to winning elections. And for a large percentage of the public, it works.

Successful politicians who have a lasting place in history have taken the other route. Ronald Reagan sought to inspire the country to believe in themselves and the nation, even during the tension of the Cold War. John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton did the same, telling people things could be better, that the United States is better. Even Donald Trump, with “Make America Great Again,” is telling people things can be better than the stagnation at the time.

Now the Democrats have decided to take a different path. “The world is coming to an end” is meant to inspire only disaster avoidance if obedience is granted to liberals’ demand.

This occurs on nearly every issue. Climate change will kill you, unless Democrats get their way. President Trump is going to start a civil war if he’s not reelected. You name it and Democrats are offering a false choice between destruction or salvation, a salvation that can only be granted by surrender.

An Associated Press story on global warming opens with, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed…” That’s not the entirety of the article’s opening sentence, but I’ll wait till later to finish it. First, a little more on the problem.

Having failed to convert the voting age public into true believers on the environment, liberals set their sights on children. Adopting the tobacco company model of hooking them while they’re young, the indoctrination machine has churned out the first generation of the faithful who’ve been elected to Congress.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a true believer – the unquestioning adherent to the idea of the destruction of life in 12 years if we don’t surrender to the liberal agenda right now. But the high priestess in the Holy Church of Global Warming is not enough alone to accomplish their goal. That’s why they’ve built an army.

Children across Europe have been going on “climate strikes” in an attempt force capitulation to the “green agenda” by adults. Truth be told, it doesn’t get much easier than convincing school kids to skip class, whatever the cause, especially when teachers and school administrators grant permission.

These “strikes” are coming to the United States. Organizers have thrust children to the front, with four of them writing in an op-ed announcing their plans, “We strike because our world leaders haven’t acknowledged, prioritized, or properly addressed the climate crisis. We strike because marginalized communities across our nation—especially communities of color and low-income communities—are already disproportionately impacted by climate change. We strike because if the societal order is disrupted by our refusal to attend school, then influential adults will be forced to take note, face the urgency of the climate crisis, and enact change.”

Fear, indeed, is a powerful motivator.
“With our future at stake, we call for radical legislative action—now—to combat climate change and its countless detrimental effects on the American people,” these brainwashed teens write.

They conclude, “We strike because we believe the climate crisis should be called what it really is: A national emergency, because we are running out of time.” And they really believe it because they’ve been told it’s true by teachers, politicians, journalists, and other adults in positions of trust who’ve exploited their authority to advance the liberal agenda.

Rather than attempting to quell the fears of these children and allow them to be instead of scared pawns in a farcical progressive power play, the Democratic Party celebrates their deception. They’re proud of their work. They’re proud of the lying, they’re proud of the fear.

Remember that Associated Press article I quoted earlier? In it, they reported a UN official declaring “governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.” That would scare any child, and add some legitimacy to AOC’s “we’re all gonna die in 12 years” mantra, except for one thing…

The entire opening sentence of the piece reads, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” The article was written in June of 1989, which is four months before AOC was born. If these doomsayers were right, she would have been swimming in the streets of New York when she was 10.

But fear overrides facts. And when what you’re conditioned to be afraid of something no one is willing to stop, you get angry. Kids are angry and afraid for a very good reason, it’s just not directed toward whom it should be – the truly bad people filling their heads with lies for political gain.

LIBs, illegal alien invaders and terrorists employ the same methods and tactics. They all use innocent children as shields to do their dirty work.

[Doodoo]

Republican s continue to separate children form their families at the border

"CEO leaves Texas organization that detains migrant children
By NOMAAN MERCHANT Associated Press Mar 11, 2019 Updated 2 hrs ago '

$523,000,000 USD for 9 months work You want to cut the deficit here is another area to start