Climate Crisis, Inc. has become a $1.5 trillion industry

No warming in 18 years, no category 3-5 hurricane hitting the USA in ten years, seas rising at barely six inches a century: computer models and hysteria are consistently contradicted by Real World experiences.

So how do White House, EPA, UN, EU, Big Green, Big Wind, liberal media, and even Google, GE and Defense Department officials justify their fixation on climate change as the greatest crisis facing humanity? How do they excuse saying government must control our energy system, our economy and nearly every aspect of our lives – deciding which jobs will be protected and which ones destroyed, even who will live and who will die – in the name of saving the planet? What drives their intense ideology?

The answer is simple. The annual revenue of the Climate Crisis & Renewable Energy Industry has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year business! That’s equal to the annual economic activity generated by the entire US nonprofit sector, or all savings over the past ten years from consumers switching to generic drugs. By comparison, revenue for the much-vilified Koch Industries are about $115 billion, for ExxonMobil around $365 billion.

According to a 200-page analysis by the Climate Change Business Journal, this Climate Industrial Complex can be divided into nine segments: low carbon and renewable power; carbon capture and storage; energy storage, such as batteries; energy efficiency; green buildings; transportation; carbon trading; climate change adaptation; and consulting and research. Consulting alone is a $27-billion-per-year industry that handles “reputation management” for companies and tries to link weather events, food shortages and other problems to climate change. Research includes engineering R&D and climate studies.

The $1.5-trillion price tag appears to exclude most of the Big Green environmentalism industry, a $13.4-billion-per-year business in the USA alone. The MacArthur Foundation just gave another $50 million to global warming alarmist groups. Ex-NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Chesapeake Energy gave the Sierra Club $105 million to wage war on coal (shortly before the Club began waging war on natural gas and Chesapeake Energy, in what some see as poetic justice). Warren Buffett, numerous “progressive” foundations, Vladimir Putin cronies and countless companies also give endless millions to Big Green.

Our hard-earned tax dollars are likewise only partially included in the CCBJ tally. As professor, author and columnist Larry Bell notes in his new book, Scared Witless: Prophets and profits of climate doom, the U.S. government spent over $185 billion between 2003 and 2010 on climate change items – and this wild spending spree has gotten even worse in the ensuing Obama years. We are paying for questionable to fraudulent global warming studies, climate-related technology research, loans and tax breaks for Solyndra and other companies that go bankrupt, and “climate adaptation” foreign aid to poor countries.

Also not included: the salaries and pensions of thousands of EPA, NOAA, Interior, Energy and other federal bureaucrats who devote endless hours to devising and imposing regulations for Clean Power Plans, drilling and mining bans, renewable energy installations, and countless Climate Crisis, Inc. handouts. A significant part of the $1.9 trillion per year that American businesses and families pay to comply with mountains of federal regulations is also based on climate chaos claims.

Add in the state and local equivalents of these federal programs, bureaucrats, regulations and restrictions, and we’re talking serious money. There are also consumer costs, including the far higher electricity prices families and businesses must pay, especially in states that want to prove their climate credentials.

The impacts on companies and jobs outside the Climate Crisis Industry are enormous, and growing. For every job created in the climate and renewable sectors, two to four jobs are eliminated in other parts of the economy, studies in Spain, Scotland and other countries have found. The effects on people’s health and welfare, and on overall environmental quality, are likewise huge and widespread.

But all these adverse effects are studiously ignored by Climate Crisis profiteers – and by the false prophets of planetary doom who manipulate data, exaggerate and fabricate looming catastrophes, and create the pseudo-scientific basis for regulating carbon-based energy and industries into oblivion. Meanwhile, the regulators blatantly ignore laws that might penalize their favored constituencies.

In one glaring example, a person who merely possesses a single bald eagle feather can be fined up to $100,000 and jailed for a year. But operators of the wind turbine that killed the eagle get off scot-free. Even worse, the US Fish & Wildlife Service actively helps Big Wind hide and minimize its slaughter of millions of raptors, other birds and bats every year. It has given industrial wind operators a five-year blanket exemption from the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Birds Treaty Act and Endangered Species Act. The FWS even proposed giving Big Wind a 30-year exemption.

Thankfully, the US District Court in San Jose, CA recently ruled that the FWS and Interior Department violated the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws, when they issued regulations granting these companies a 30-year license to kill bald and golden eagles. But the death tolls continue to climb.

Professor Bell’s perceptive, provocative, extensively researched book reviews the attempted power grab by Big Green, Big Government and Climate Crisis, Inc. In 19 short chapters, he examines the phony scientific consensus on global warming, the secretive and speculative science and computer models used to “prove” we face a cataclysm, ongoing collusion and deceit by regulators and activists, carbon tax mania, and many of the most prominent but phony climate crises: melting glaciers, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, disappearing species and declining biodiversity. His articles and essays do likewise.

Scared Witless also lays bare the real reasons for climate fanaticism, aside from lining pockets. As one prominent politician and UN or EPA bureaucrat after another has proudly and openly said, their “true ambition” is to institute “a new global order” … “ global governance” … “redistribution of the world’s resources” … an end to “hegemonic” capitalism … and “a profound transformation” of “attitudes and lifestyles,” energy systems and “the global economic development model.”

In other words, these unelected, unaccountable US, EU and UN bureaucrats want complete control over our industries; over everything we make, grow, ship, eat and do; and over every aspect of our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties. And they intend to “ride the global warming issue” all the way to this complete control, “even if the theory of global warming is wrong” … “even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect” … “even if the science of global warming is all phony.”

If millions of people lose their jobs in the process, if millions of retirees die from hypothermia because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, if millions of Africans and Asians die because they are denied access to reliable, affordable carbon-based electricity – so be it. Climate Crisis, Inc. doesn’t care.

This global warming industry survives and thrives only because of secretive, fraudulent climate science; constant collusion between regulators and pressure groups; and a steady stream of government policies, regulations, preferences, subsidies and mandates – and taxes and penalties on its competitors. CCI gives lavishly to politicians who keep the gravy train on track, while its well-funded attack dogs respond quickly, aggressively and viciously to anyone who dares to challenge its orthodoxies or funding.

Climate change has been “real” throughout Earth and human history – periodically significant, sometimes sudden, sometimes destructive, driven by the sun and other powerful, complex, interacting natural forces that we still do not fully understand … and certainly cannot control. It has little or nothing to do with the carbon dioxide that makes plants grow faster and better, and is emitted as a result of using fossil fuels that have brought countless wondrous improvements to our environment and human condition.

Climate Crisis, Inc. is a wealthy, nasty behemoth. But it is a house of cards. Become informed. Get involved. Fight back.

Categories

About the Author: Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

  • Circaman

    Climate fanaticism? Stake out your place in history and let your children and grandchildren see. Bring heaps of shame upon yourself for the generations. Too bad you can’t grasp what is happening but then we saw a LOT of that in 1940 as well.

    • w p

      So what exactly ‘of that’ did you see a ‘LOT’ in 1940 we can’t grasp today?

      Where were you at that time? What did you do? As an 18 year old, maybe? Having come a long way, aged gracefully, loaded with experience, tell us more, so that we can avoid bringing ‘heaps of shame’ on us. Really curious.

      In the meantime let’s enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM&feature=related

      • Circaman

        In 1940 the same end of the political spectrum that now denies climate science did not want to aid England or oppose Hitler. No problem, they thought. Doesn’t affect us. They kept their America First heads in the sand and opposed politicians that saw the need for action and a very, very, disruptive action it was…….and costly. Lucky it only cost us 250 thousand lives and a whole bunch of treasure because if the Germans got hold of England’s navy……….this would be auf Deutsch. I didn’t have to be there to know about it. I wasn’t born until 1948. I can read every newspaper from the period.

        • Troy Heffner

          That is about the most ignorant comparison I have ever heard. One is science, the other is politics. It’s a pathetic deflection to not deal with the fact there is no scientific evidence pointing to any doom and gloom climate scenario. The climate models have failed and you still buy this BS? The supposed climate “science” you speak of has utterly failed to happen in the real world. It used to be called “global warming” until, oops, there was no significant global warming. The we called it “man made climate change.” Now its just climate change. Gee, how many ice ages have their been? We know it changes. But there is no evidence of impending doom. Your tin foil hat is leaking again.http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/

          • Circaman

            Ignorant comparison? Tell that to Europe. Tell that to China. Tell that to Citibank. Tell that to Hank Paulson. Tell that to Scientific American. Tell that to any person whose eyes are remotely open. I am sorry that you cannot deal with the truth. Indeed it is rather dire. You may continue to calm yourself with ignorance and don’t worry, the adults are dealing with the issue. it is noted that you have chosen to be a head-in-the sand denier of climate science. i hope the fossil fuel industry is paying you well so that you can go on one last toot. Leave the physics to the adults in the room. However, your place in history has been made. I am sorry about that for your sake. Now if you will excuse me, I have work to do. Oh, you want to cite things from the internet? I could go on for years but you can just pop this one in your head first. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/7-solutions-to-climate-change-happening-now/

            • Troy Heffner

              Yet another science ignorant that thinks pro-climate change websites are a valid source. You try to hurl insults and provide no actual real data. News flash – CO2 is not a cause of climate change and makes up less than 25% of the atmosphere. If the climate models were correct we would all be dead by now (Yeah, Al Gore was completely wrong). All the changes over the last 100 years are within statistical historic norms of climate change. Your link provides conjecture and no data to back up any claims. Try learning to actually look at data instead of read talking points.

              • Circaman

                Great, sources. Now how about some….y’know….real sources: http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/global-warming-weather-channel-position-statement-20141029, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/cost-of-not-acting-on-climate-change-44-trillion-citi.html, http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/Article/605221…….that would be Citibank, the Department of Defense, The Weather channel….I don’t want to burden you but your sources are kinda homemade aren’t they?

                • Troy Heffner

                  Lol- The weather channel? No bias there. CNBC? News organization that parrots what they are told. Not science related in the least. Even the founder of the weather channel says its garbage- http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-myth-weather/2014/11/02/id/604674/

                  You continue to post no science. Only nut job articles of unfounded science.

                  • Circaman

                    Nut jobs like the Dept. of Defense? Citibank? Hank Paulson? Look, I get it. If the truth were grasped you might go mad with despair. Like I said, the adults are dealing with it around the world. Go play a video game. We’re on it. By the way, your Weather Channel post is outdated. They have woken up.

                    • Troy Heffner

                      Obviously you are in denial of the realities of the world. You have highlighted my point exactly. None of those sources are scientific sources. You can find a media outlet that will tell you whatever you think you want to hear. Once again, real science and actual data is against you. Every time the alarmist models fail they come up with another excuse. There have been multiple indictments and proven falsifying of data to suit the global warming agenda. Go crawl back into your mothers basement.

                      Obviohsly you have a problem with capitalism as well. Im sure Harry Reid is very proud of you. Rich people like the Kocks are rich because they provide jobs and take risks. Im sorry you are jeleous of success. Hint- the climate hoax industry is a trillion dollar business. Way to line the pockets of the goofballs that perpetuate this nonsence; because that what “carbon credits” (what a joke) are all about. Money and nothing else

                    • Circaman

                      Oh , I’m done with this. I thought I made that clear. Don’t upset yourself and sleep well. i am not interested in converting you. I just hate to see websites like this going forward “as if”. Just keep repeating, “the sky is not falling. It’s not falling. Mean chicken Little. The sky is NOT falling…..

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Sleep tight, you obviously have little idea of what science is or about.

                    • Circaman

                      I always sleep tight. Dreaming that someday i will have your grasp of science. Just imagine it!

                    • Troy Heffner

                      So we are waiting for you to actually address the CO2/ warming causation fact that Brin explained so well. Don’t worry. We know that you don’t really understand science and cant refute. We also know from ice core samples that CO2 levels have risen and declined in both cooling and warming periods throughout history. Correlation does not equal cuasation. Make sure younstraighten out your Area 51 souvenier shelf before you go to bed.

                    • Circaman

                      OK…one more. Can’t resist. Too bad those ignorant folks in Europe haven’t read you genius Murdoch scientists. They could save billions trying to keep the sea out of their bedrooms when none of this is happening. Gotta send you guys to Brussels ASAP! Obviously those guys in Hamburg and Holland can’t grasp the laws of science a you can. http://blog.ricksteves.com/blog/battling-the-sea-in-the-netherlands-and-the-tropics/

                    • Circaman

                      Oh, right……you cannot believe Rick Steves. How could you? How about another little sea wall project? So many people spending so much money based on things you cannot fathom…….because when you do and soon you will have no choice, you may not be able to take it. Ta ta. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-11/sinking-jakarta-starts-building-giant-wall-as-sea-rises-cities

                    • Circaman

                      But how could you believe Bloomberg News. doesn’t he actually believe in climate change. Ok, then. Reuters it is. (Until Murdoch buys it, of course.) Florida is probably listening to you guys very carefully and so they just deny but….then there is this: http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/waters-edge-the-crisis-of-rising-sea-levels/

                    • Circaman

                      And these “stupider-than-you guys” written up here in National Geographic are just wasting their time with projects like this. Too bad they haven’t grasped the “truth about CO2” like y’all. then they could do nothing. You better write THEM instead of me and show them the error of their SCIENCE. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/climate-change-economics/parker-text

                    • Circaman

                      Whoops! Seems like those scientifically ignorant fellas at The Economist have got it all wrong. Of course you gents could get hired there in a minute but why would you lower yourself to that liberal rag? Wait, you mean they are not liberals but Tories? Kinda smart too but lets vote and see who people listen to more you and Murdoch or The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/12208005 Hopefully, the next time I see that little disqus thingie in my inbox I just delete and you go have a nice life with good dinners and good wine or whatever. Sorta nice hangin’ out with ya even with all the disagreement. Cheers!

                    • Troy Heffner
                    • Dano2

                      Disinformation sites!

                      Drink!

                      best,

                      D

                    • Troy Heffner

                      Lol- Nice rebuttal. Too bad you have provided nothing in the way of counter argument. You should try science.

                      I guess you drank too much.

                    • Dano2

                      I made no attempt at rebuttal. I called out a trigger word for our denialist drinking game.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Troy Heffner

                      Oh, so your simply a troll with nothing to contribute. Sorry I fed you. Wont happen again.

                    • Dano2

                      Hey, I’m just here for the drinking game. Keep doing what you’re doing!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      I guess you gave it your best shot and your last mail reveals all.

                    • Dano2

                      I guess you have nothing but making sh– up, which reveals all.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Interesting the knee jerk condemnation of controversial info sources.

                    • Dano2

                      Not a single science site in the list. Typical.

                      Denialists have zero science to support their beliefs or validate their self-identity. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis. Nil. Squat. Null set.

                      And tobacco-funded Milloy! Drink!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      I hesitate to call folk stupid, they just understand matters from a different point of view.

                      What intrigues me is you don’t wish follow our reasoning, you are unable to explain why you disagree, and still choose to believe what we understand to be false. Why do you follow others who are unable to explain how this theory works? It is a theory after all and not a rule or a law, it remains unproven and is promoted by those with vested interests. We can and do explain where we feel it falls short of the truth.

                      I did work for the Economist on the email digest several years ago and it was the biggest list in the world at the time. I don’t hide behind any false name I am just me with no interest other than truth.

                    • Troy Heffner

                      And how about Yale for an explanation. Once again all the article says is that the sea levels are rising. They have been rising for over a century. They accelerated through the 90’s and have slowed in the last decade. The current prediction is the sea will rise 1-2 meters by 2100. Like I said, no impending doom and gloom.
                      http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise/2702/

                    • Troy Heffner

                      Yup, developers trying to cash in on the scare. Nothing more than money. Once again- we know the sea level is rising. It has been for centuries. And again- no science. Oh look- a slower hurricane season predicted the last two years because of cooler ocean temps. Well, there goes that global warming model. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/noaa-hurricane-forecast-what-does-2014-hurricane-season-have-in-store/

                    • Ian5

                      Did you even read the Yale article?
                      “Some facts are well established. Researchers can say that global ocean levels have risen about 19 centimeters in the last century. And the rate of rise has sped up. The 20th-century average is about 1.7 millimeters per year; since 1993 the average rate has nearly doubled — to about 3.2 millimeters per year.”

                    • Troy Heffner

                      Of course I read it. You have cherry picked one paragraph to fit your narrative. The article, in total, outlines how, exactly what I have said, we know the ocean is rising. But it also casts doubt on what the rate of rise will be and outlines how difficult it is to predict the rise rate. So, the science is not settled, and there is no imlending doom and gloom.

                    • Ian5

                      Wow the article “outlines exactly what I have said”. You should write for Scientific American.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Sea levels rising? Or might it just be tectonic plate movement? From the chap measuring it would seem the same, water level increasing. Global Warming measures could not make any difference, even if they had the CO2 theory proven which it is not.

                    • Troy Heffner

                      Agreed Brin. It was not my intention to suggest one cause. Some areas of land are “sinking,” some places the ocean is rising, within statistical norm, and others it is simply normal erosion. The article also says 70% of the world will experience “normal” sea level rise (with no explantion) while others will experience more severe effects. Once again, it does not cite man as the cause; but, the climate scare crowd will attempt to use this as evidence to support their cause.

                    • Dano2

                      and have slowed in the last decade.

                      Utterly false.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Troy Heffner

                      Lol- do you read your own articles? It says the city is sinking, not the ocean rising. Way to go nut job!

                    • Troy Heffner

                      Once again- blog with no science

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Look I’m not insulting you, my assumption is that as you have not rebutted my explanation of CO2, so you don’t understand. Prove me wrong! Explain your understanding and why.

                • Troy Heffner
                  • Circaman

                    Ooh! The Daily Caller! They totally outrank those no-nothings at Scientific American.

                • Troy Heffner
                  • Circaman

                    Ah! the Telegraph! Why not just let Rupert Murdoch write your emails?? That’s some source there. Rupert Murdoch. I haven’t even put anything by The Guardian because they are liberal. How ’bout The Economist then. They are Tories. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21632508-americas-concessions-are-more-real-chinas-dealing-denial. Your sources are bogus and I am done with this. Do you think that this is a debate? The world is changing from fossil fuels to renewable energy and you and the Kochs couldn’t stop it no matter what. The world went digital and now it will go renewable. Do you think that I am going to spend my day listening to rupert Murdoch generated sources? Hasta la vista, amigo. Nice bar fight.

                • Brin Jenkins

                  If you truly understand the CO2 theory of man made climate change/global warming please explain the precise mechanism of CO2 allowing heat in but not out again. If thats incorrect tell me how it happens. No links, no one else websites how you understand it.

                  • Circaman

                    No websites? Only every scientific one. I mean not the ones generated by the richest industry in history……fossil fuels. No, not them. Good luck to you.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      You mean you can’t explain why you believe the CO2 theory! I can explain why I don’t.

                      CO2 is stored mainly in water, the colder the water the more CO2 in it. Take water from your cold tap and leave it in a warm place, after a few mins bubbles form inside the glass, this is CO2 being released as the water warms up.

                      We have a cause, heat, and the effect CO2 is released. How can you reverse a cause and its effect so that CO2 is the cause of heating?

                      Explain this please if you can.

                    • Linda MacLeod Goodman

                      Good question.. which alarmist trolls can’t answer, so they’re ignored. ho hum

                    • Ian5

                      “…bubbles form inside the glass, this is CO2 being released as the water warms up”: This statement is misleading; the bubbles are composed primarily nitrogen and oxygen.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Only because there is only 400 parts per million of C02 and the rest is made up of mainly the other gases. CO2 is however the most soluble of all gases, the colder the water, the more C02 is held as liquid.

                      You could always substitute Soda water, that is gassed with C02 and the same occurs cold retain CO2 and a little heat releases it. Putting a part bottle of Champaign in your fridge keeps it fizz for another day!

                      The point remains that heat drives the gas out of water, cause and its effect. The CO2 theory reverses this cause and its effect.

                      Now Ian in the past I refused to correspond with you because of your abuse, can you refrain from this so we might continue?

                    • Ian5

                      What do you mean “the CO2 theory reverses this cause and effect”.

                  • Dano2

                    The general mechanism is like a greenhouse or your car on a sunny day.

                    Hallelujah! I did a good enough ‘slpainin’ that Brin can’t declare physics and science defunct!

                    Yay me!

                    Best,

                    D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Why does this happen? Do you believe its down to increased CO2? Outside of the greenhouse its not so hot, but the atmosphere is the same both inside and the outside so why should it be hotter inside?

                      I feel its the enclosure of the skin not allowing convection to dissipate the heat. The car and green house both cool very quickly when the Sun isn’t radiating heat.

                      We also know a lens works by observation. I can also explain how and why it works. That is a mechanism which I’m afraid you just don’t understand. Without this understanding how do you know what the cause is? You might observe an effect but can only guess why. Physics is not redundant, a full understanding is required otherwise you can only be a believer as you don’t fully understand!

                    • Dano2

                      Here’s a question for you, then. What would happen if all the CO2/CH4/GHGs were suddenly removed from the atmosphere?

                      Just the answer, no cheap preening, no tawdry making stuff up, no craven assertions, no transparent tactics.

                      Just the answer.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      If you remove CO2 all life dies out.

                      Now who wishes to do this, and what has it to do with you explaining why you are a believer in the CO2 Theory?

                    • Dano2

                      What happens to earth’s temperature when GHGs are removed?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Dano2

                      And….what happens to the temperature when GHGs are removed?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Pratts like you thrive.

                    • Dano2

                      No courage or no integrity to tell us about temperature?

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Ian5

                      What happens to temperature. Please tell us.

                    • Ian5

                      What happens to temperature. Still waiting…

                • KLH6

                  CNBC is a source for nothing except lies & distortion. The other two are funded by government which has it’s own agenda. Not reliable info.

              • John McDougall

                CO2 is not 25% of the atmosphere … try 0.004% (roughly)

            • midnighteye

              Oh do shut up, you gibbering idiot. Quantity is no substitute for quality, try to understand that.

          • Brin Jenkins

            Absolutely true, the so called CO2 facts are based on a false premise for a devious agenda. Control energy and you have control of industry and capital. Now who was it had that in mind when he wrote Das Kapital? We are fighting a rear guard action against a powerful foe.

            • Dano2

              the so called CO2 facts are based on a false premise for a devious agenda.

              Can you imagine?!?!?!?!?!?

              The foresight of a scientist 150 years ago, able to control the worrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrld-uh!

              Unbelievable.

              Best,

              D

        • Brin Jenkins

          Not quite correct I’m afraid. The real threat always has been Internationalism. Do read about the Frankfurt School set up tp further the revolution and what the real agenda still is. This all originated with the 1860’s Hegel Society that Karl Marx belonged to most of his adult life. This is essential for Political Students to understand both left or right wing.

          • Circaman

            Sorry, the real threat is the climate and not internationalism.

            • Brin Jenkins

              No its not, what I suggested you read shows how our destruction was planned a long time ago, and the perversion of science is but one piece of the method used.

        • w p

          Wow! The climatologists did a good job on you. Hitler, Holocaust and all? Forgive me, rather scary bizarre.

          I prefer the story about Hannibal crossing the Alps, fighting the Romans. Luckily for him, his elefants and troops, there were no glaciers. There was full blast global warming, though. Maybe the Senators in Rome should have been fighting it with their chariots…?

          No Deutsch required, just go to pages 40 and 41 in the paper, today and a couple of thousand years or so ago.
          http://www.alpinfo.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/alpinfoch/Forschung/Projekte/Klimaentwicklung/Die_Alpen_6-2004.pdf

          • Circaman

            Republican candidates: “I’m not a scientist.” Maybe you’d be better served listening to them then. My point about America Firsters and isolationists in 1940 is quite apt considering climate denial today. Hannibal…..not so much. Probably not going to get my Langenschedt’s German-English out to read that. I suggest you take a nap and try to breathe because I really do not wish you ill.

        • Brin Jenkins

          Where have you studied WW2, who do you use as your references point?

          There are some you tube lectures by David Irving. Look and listen to his explanations and references. He is of course shouted down by the International holo cost support team ignoring all the evidence. Its a very deep and emotive subject that has been pushed hard in one direction for a long time. It is used to justify a New World Order based on half truths and lies.

  • Marilyn Wootton

    Biggest hoax perpetrated on the American public.

    • Brin Jenkins

      The whole of our civilisation is being dismantled, not just the USA. Read a bit about the 1926 Frankfurt School and what their aims were. It explain a great deal of what has come to pass since, many of the members emigrated to the USA and UK taking the message with them at the outbreak of WW2.

  • peterfalexander

    Vast Left Wing Con$piracy?

    • Brin Jenkins

      Left or right is probably the wrong label. A New World Order seems more likely and its a very long term aim, keep an eye on the Builderberg Group who see themselves as Alpha with the rest of us down the social scale.

      • peterfalexander

        Thanks

  • Linda MacLeod Goodman

    Carbon = 6 protons, 6 neutrons & 6 electrons.. Carbon Card 2030: Don’t leave home without it – or else!

    • Brin Jenkins

      Carbon is a wonderful material, the best filters we have. Toner cartridges, pencils and now it seems Graphene the new Super Capacitor material.

      • Linda MacLeod Goodman

        I agree! Just wish I had the $ to invest in graphene. The Biggest Lie is that CO2 is a pollutant because it’s present in pollution. It’s like saying breathing is the cause of illness because everyone who becomes ill breathes!

        • KLH6

          Do they want us all to stop breathing? Have they studied how much carbon dioxide humans are exhaling? Don’t these nuts have anything more productive to do?

          • Brin Jenkins

            They have, and cows farting methane.

            • KLH6

              I read the follow up Glen Becks Agenda 21. Pretty scary. I knew about the methane from cows. How many cows does India have, I wonder? I mentioned the carbon because somewhere I read the EPA
              wanted to totally eliminate carbon emissions by a certain date in the future. That is what’s ludicrous. There’s a great video by an ecologist on Prager University. It’s only about 5 minutes long but at the end it shows a completely dark earth because without carbon dioxide everything will die. These are the idiots running the country & if we continue, we’re all doomed.

              • Brin Jenkins

                We do have a problem, and I have difficulty understanding is the very low mentality of so many useful idiots with a fixed idea of doom.

                • Dano2

                  Speaking of useful idiots, Agenda 21 promulgator, everyone! Get your agenda 21!

                  Best,

                  D

  • KLH6

    I just found a great website when I was researching CO2. It’s called a “skeptical mind”, then I looked up CO2. Basically, they destroyed the leftists theories with simple demonstration. I love stuff like that because I am a skeptic. I come from a science background. I want real data & experiments. I don’t want some gibberish based on hysteria & the “greenies” with an agenda to spend us into oblivion, Oh, wait they’re already doing that.

    • Brin Jenkins

      Thanks I hadn’t seen that site:- http://a-sceptical-mind.com/an-alternative-solar-theory

      This links to an alternative theory on what drives Climate and I had read some of it before. Its feasible to say the very least and the graphs do match Climate variations pretty well.

    • elizabetta

      skeptical mind is a blog written by people who misrepresent facts. People who really want to understand climate change – as opposed to merely validating ideological misconceptions – should read some peer-reviewed research papers on the subject.

      • KLH6

        Sorry, I don’t trust any liberal scientists. They’ve skewed too much data to suit their agenda. I’m sick of lies & distorted facts.

        • elizabetta

          Oh, and you know results have been skewed because of industry propaganda? And, why would anyone consider that all scientists are liberal?

          • KLH6

            I didn’t say all scientists were liberal but do your own research & look at the data. Nothing to do with propaganda by industry or otherwise. But 1st of all, climate change will occur no matter what. It’s been changing for centuries. Volcanoes & the sun have much bigger impact than man. In Colorado where I live, they want to reduce methane significantly, but it occurs naturally in many parts of the state & the % climate people want is not possible because there is a larger % that is here naturally. Or 100 % carbon emissions eventually. We’ll all die because practically everything including humans are part carbon.
            But IS wanting a nuclear destruction of millions of people is a much more pressing problem or EMP knocking out our grids. Then only about 10% of people will be in our country. Climate change for USA accomplished! No, I don’t trust liberals. They just repeat themselves over & over. If you don’t agree they resort to name calling.
            No one will ever convince me that a 1° temperature rise over a century will kill us or we can’t adapt. Man will wipe us out first

            • elizabetta

              I have done a lot of research – I’ve been reading climate studies for more than a decade. Mass Spectrometer analysis of C02 from air samples can identify the origin of that C02, because C02 from volcanoes has a different isotopic ratio than that which is created by the burning of fossil fuels. Numerous studies by many different researchers have found that the majority of C02 in the air comes from industry – not from volcanoes. Fossil fuel burning over the last 100 + years has caused most of the increased C02 in the atmosphere.

              Many different studies have also found that the rise in temperatures could not be due to the sun. When the sun causes an increase in temperature, the heat comes from above, and temperatures rise first in the upper atmosphere and then in the lower atmosphere and the surface of the planet. However, temperatures on the surface of the planet, and in the oceans, are abnormally high, while temperatures at the highest altitudes are abnormally low. Fox News reported on the first study about five years ago that showed two of the highest peaks in the Himalayas had more snow and ice accumulation than they did 5 years earlier, but that the hundreds of other areas at lower altitudes all had much MORE snow and ice MELT than predicted by models. The researchers figured out from these measurements that altitude was an essential parameter that needed to be included in temperature and ice measurements, since the highest altitudes would actually be colder than normal and have more ice and snow that predicted. The Fox News caption for this study said “Oops, scientists were wrong – there’s more ice now than 5 years ago so climate change is a hoax”. When media outlets are distorting the findings of studies in such an egregious manner, it’s no wonder so many people are misinformed about the science. People should always fact check by looking up actual studies, as they were written by researchers. I can tell you that from my own experience, Fox News does not tell the truth about the findings of studies – they assume their audience will never read the actual study.

              • KLH6

                Bravo for you. I would still be more concerned about IS, since their aim is to nuke Western civilization. Climate change will be irrelevant in that case. They are marauding through the ME & destroying Europe. When they take over there will be no science. All they care about is having their Caliphate & subjugating women with Sharia law. You won’t even be allowed to drive. The Europeans aren’t even replacing themselves. Muslims have an average of 8.2 children so won’t be that far into the future it won’t matter a bit what technology & studying is done. It will all be erased.

  • wally12

    Paul Driessen has it correct. There has been no proof in the claims made by the climate scientists and the AGW groups. The models have not been able to establish that humans burning fossil fuels and the emissions of CO2 as a significant cause of warming the earth. If all these so called believers would just stop to think for themselves, they could realize the error in their thinking. The sun is the major source of heating this planet and I’m sure even the climate scientists would agree. I believe they also agree that clouds and water vapor are the greatest green house gas, This is readily observed on a partly cloudy day. When the clouds shield us from the sun, we immediately sense being colder. Conversely, when the cloud pass by and the sun is allowed to shine down on us , we immediately sense increased warmth. Next ask yourself that if the planet has less total cloud cover, the average earth temperature will increase, Conversely, if there are more clouds than average, the earth will experience lower average temperature. Henrik Svensmark, an astrophysicist noted that the amount of clouds were a significant determinate in how warm or cold the planet is. His experiment showing the influence of cosmic rays and could cover showed that indeed cosmic rays and sun activity influence earths temperature. Of course, the climate scientists would not accept his findings since the findings contradict the settled science theory.
    Has the earth been warming? Of course. It has been warming since the ice ages with cycles of cooling and warming since then.

    The Tornio River in Finland has been monitored and data recorded from 1693 to 2000 for the earliest ice break up each year. The data shows that the earth has been warming on average for the entire 307 years. What is interesting is that the graph provided shows a constant rate of warming. When the climate scientists state that increasing CO2 from the industrial era has resulted in increased warming, then the graph should show that ice break up on this river would also show earlier breakup. However, there is no change in the graph to verify that. There is no inverted “hockey stick” None! Therefore, this record shows that CO2 has not been a significant driver of increased warming.
    The entire climate change has become a political issue and has creased to be scientific. There are thousands of scientists who agree that the claims by the climate scientists have not been proven by observation and definitely not by model predictions.

  • Mervyn

    That approximately amounts to Australia’s GDP i.e approximately 2.4% of the world’s economy!!!! Incredible and disgraceful.

    Imagine how that money could be much better spent raising people out of poverty through better education and better health, and thus making the world a better place!

  • elizabetta

    No Warming in 18 Years – Hmmmm…. this was obviously written by someone who never goes outside, for an audience of elderly dementia patients who also never go outside or watch the news anyplace other than on Fox. We’ve had at least 12 of the hottest years on record since 2000 – how the hell does that equal no warming in 18 years?

  • Keith

    Temperatures have increased since 1900…oops…that was the end of a 600 year cold snap. I am glad it stopped getting cold. We would have had glaciers in Greenland! We can see the church in Hvalsey again after 500 years.