Silencing Dissent Via the Courts (No Climate Free Speech, Part 4)

h/t TallBloke

Donna Laframboise highlights how the Supreme Court would like to rule on scientific debate surrounding climate change. This could for example, make it illegal for a science teacher to express a “non-orthodox” view on climate. McCarthy would be proud.

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

A British academic wants an international court to declare climate skeptics wrong, once and for all.

Sands’ presentation begins 9 minutes in and ends shortly past 56 minutes

Last week, a three-day conference took place in the UK attended by a “key group of the world’s leading judges, lawyers and legal academics.” Pompously titled Adjudicating the Future: Climate Change and the Rule of Law, its Twitter hashtag was #ClimateCourts. Some of its events were held in the very room in which UK Supreme Court decisions are delivered.

The Supreme Court has a YouTube channel where you can watch law professor Philippe Sands argue, at that conference, that the International Court of Justice (which he describes as “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations”) has two choices: “consign itself to irrelevance” or join the fight against climate change.

I always thought a court was supposed to…

View original post 794 more words


Cook’s 97% Scam Debunked

As Paul Homewood rightly points out, Cook et al. have been called liars and frauds multiple times over their 97% consensus claim, yet not one legal rebuttal. In this litigious world that tells you everything you need to know about these charlatans and their academic masters. Their paper is childishly easy to debunk (I suspect Paul didn’t break sweat here) and yet not a single murmur from the main stream press or politicians who for reasons we understand “want” to believe this guff.


By Paul Homewood


Yesterday, we saw how easily debunked the original “97% of scientists agree” turned out to be.

There therefore had to be a renewed attempt by the warmist establishment to make the claim stick, so step forward John Cook with a much more sophisticated scam.

Jose Duarte, expert in Social Psychology, Scientific Validity, and Research Methods, has actually called the Cook paper “multiply fraudulent”, and, as far as I know, Cook has taken no action to challenge the claim. This, as much as anything else, shows just what a con trick the whole business was. How many scientists, after all, would accept being called fraudulent without taking action?

This was the Abstract:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We…

View original post 585 more words

Europe’s ‘Colossal Energy Disaster’: €5.7 trillion ‘Completely Wasted’ on Wind Power ‘Wishes’

And we thought we had it bad in the UK!


pig-trough-ey It takes real effort to squander €5.7 trillion, but it can be done …


When the wind industry and its worshippers start chanting their mantras about the ‘wonders’ of wind, it isn’t long before they start preaching about the examples purportedly set by the Europeans; and, in particular, the Nordic nations. The latter have seen economics hit back with a vengeance; wind power investment has thoroughly collapsed:

Wind Power Investment Collapses in Sweden, Denmark, Finland & Norway

Now, Europe as a whole is counting the costs of what is a disaster on a colossal scale. Here’s NoTricksZone detailing the magnitude of the calamity. The video is in German, helpfully translated by Pierre Gosselin. Danke, Pierre.

Europe’s € 5.7 TRILLION Climate Policy Is “Very Expensive”, “Counter-Productive” And “Does Nothing For Climate” … “Completely Wasted”!
Pierre Gosselin
8 October 2015

University of Magdeburg economics professor Joachim Weimann held a presentation…

View original post 674 more words

2015 GWPF Annual Lecture – Patrick Moore – ‘Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?

I always enjoy hearing Patrick speak and would have been in the audience had it not been for other commitments. Unfortunately I would only have swelled the ranks of the grey haired ones. It is sad that so few young people attended and shameful that we are brain washing our young minds with “carbon pollution”.

The analysis and conclusions that Patrick described are difficult to refute though Patrick welcomed an open debate. I would love to watch him demolish Gavin Schmidt (NASA) in public but I suspect that man is too cowardly to face him. Patrick’s conclusions do not rely on complex models, hypotheses or assumptions.Rather, he employs straightforward interpretation of historical data and simple extrapolations based on observed trends and incontrovertible facts about the role of CO2 in plant growth.

The graphics of Montreal under ice due to only a small projected fall in temperature ought to cause even an alarmist to choke on his organic cornflakes. I do not understand the mass insanity that seems to have gripped the world other than it is clearly driven by political and not scientific motives. Patrick Moore is not alone in standing against this insanity but he is at the forefront and I am grateful for that.

Spectacular NOAA Fraud With The US Climate Extreme Index

In years to come researchers will look back at this invaluable archive and simply ask “How the hell did they get away with this for so long?”

Real Science

The latest government fraud being pimped by the press is the NOAA Climate Extremes Index (CEI.) This is a completely fraudulent index designed to mask the recent lack of heat and other extreme weather in the US.

NOAA shows that the area of the US experiencing unusually hot summer afternoons has increased to record levels.

percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much above normal.

ScreenHunter_83 Oct. 18 01.15U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI): Graph | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The actual NOAA data set shows the exact opposite. The area of the country reaching 100 degrees has plummeted to record lows. None of the published NOAA adjustments should have any impact on this metric. They have no excuses for this fraud.

ScreenHunter_79 Oct. 18 00.43

The same is true for 95 degree days. The area of the US reaching 95 degrees has also plummeted and near record lows.

ScreenHunter_80 Oct. 18 00.58

Not only has the area affected by hot weather plummeted, by the…

View original post 44 more words

I’m More Worried About Helena Morrissey Than Climate Change

As Paul Homewood says “I do not expect her to know that there has been no increase in tropical cyclone activity since the 1970’s, or that US tornadoes have been close to record lows in the last four years. But I would expect her to know something about the insurance industry.”



By Paul Homewood


Another long and rambling piece in the Telegraph from Helena Morrissey , who usually spends most of her time complaining about gender gaps. This time, however, she offers up her expertise on climate change, repeating the same nonsense which Mark Carney came up with a couple of weeks ago.

View original post 991 more words

Matt Ridley: Now Here’s The Good News On Global Warming

“The satellite data show that there has been roughly a 14 per cent increase in the amount of green vegetation on the planet since 1982, that this has happened in all ecosystems, but especially in arid tropical areas, and that it is in large part due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions.”


Activists may want to shut down debate, but evidence is growing that high CO2 levels boost crops and nourish the oceans.

France’s leading television weather forecaster, Philippe Verdier, was taken off air last week for writing that there are “positive consequences” of climate change. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of mathematical physics and astrophysics at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, declared last week that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are “enormously beneficial”. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, said in a lecture last week that we should “celebrate carbon dioxide”.

Are these three prominent but very different people right? Should we at least consider seriously, before we go into a massive international negotiation based on the assumption that carbon dioxide is bad, whether we might be mistaken? Most politicians today consider such a view to be so beyond the pale as to be mad or possibly criminal.


View original post 952 more words