Deceived Schoolchildren Take To Streets In Global Climate Strike

Psychological child abuse at the hands of sociopathic adults is as twisted and evil as physical abuse. When kids are fed propaganda that they are going to die if they don’t strike for global warming, it’s time to say ‘Enough!’

One 15 year old states below, “We believe there is no point in going to school if we are not going to have a future to live in.”  These young kids have no ability or tools to understand reality, and are being mercilessly used to further the global warming hysteria of climate extremists. It is not a mistake that the only solution ever offered is Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

Vast crowds of children skipped school Friday to join a global strike against climate change, heeding the rallying cry of teen activist Greta Thunberg and demanding adults act to stop environmental disaster.

It was expected to be the biggest protest ever against the threat posed to the planet by climate change.

Yelling slogans and waving placards, children and adults across Asia and the Pacific kicked off the protest, which spread later to Africa and Europe with huge crowds filling the streets.

“We are the future. We are schoolchildren and we are not going to school,” said Vihaan Agarwal, 15, protesting in Delhi.

“We believe there is no point in going to school if we are not going to have a future to live in.”

Organisers forecast one million participants overall. In Australia alone, they said more than 300,000 children, parents and supporters rallied.

“Stop climate change now”, “There is no planet B”, “Wake up!” read some of the signs brandished by demonstrators in a trendy central shopping district of Tokyo.

“We adults caused this planet emergency,” said one of them, Chika Maruta, 32, marching with her colleagues from a cosmetics company.

“We should take our responsibilities for the next generation.”

– ‘We deserve better’ –

Swedish schoolgirl Thunberg, 16, has accused leaders of not doing enough to prevent harmful climate change.

On the eve of the strikes, she insisted solutions were being “ignored”.

“Everything counts, what you do counts,” she said in a video message to supporters.

Demonstrators young and old echoed her cry.

“We have to reduce our carbon footprints to pretty much nothing in the next 12 years, otherwise there will be drastic consequences,” said 15-year-old Jonathan Lithgow, one of about 500 children and adults demonstrating in Johannesbourg.

He said his school gave students permission to take part in the march.

The demonstrations were due to culminate in New York, where 1.1 million students in around 1,800 public schools have been permitted to skip school.

As the sun rose above the international dateline, events began in the deluge-threatened Pacific Islands of Vanuatu, the Solomons and Kiribati — where children chanted “We are not sinking, we are fighting”.

There was a similar sense of defiance across Asia.

“We are the future and we deserve better,” 12-year-old Lilly Satidtanasarn — known as “Thailand’s Greta” for her campaigning against plastic bags in malls — told AFP in Bangkok.

The adults “have just been talking about it, but they’re not doing anything,” she said. “We don’t want excuses.”

– ‘You’re being lied to’ –

In Australia, some local authorities, schools and business encouraged people to take part in the strikes.

The changing environment has become a daily fact of life in Australia, struck in recent years by droughts, more intense bushfires, devastating floods and the blanching of the Great Barrier Reef.

Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown a link between human-made gas emissions and climate change.

But the protests also laid bare resistance from those who question the threat.

Australian ruling coalition parliamentarian Craig Kelly on Thursday warned children that “everything you’re told is a lie”.

“The facts are, there is no link between climate change and drought, polar bears are increasing in number.”

Some authorities warned that absences from school on Friday must be explained — but school pupils were undeterred.

“We’re here to send a message to people in power —- the politicians, showing them that we care and this is really important to us,” said 16-year-old Will Connor.

Read full story here…

AOC: Do My Green New Deal Or Miami Will Vanish

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez levels a veiled threat against Miami, Florida if leaders don’t implement her Green New Deal; namely, that global warming will sink the city into oblivion. This is sounding more like a Marvel comic theme every day. ⁃ TN Editor

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it,” said Nazi propaganda master Joseph Goebbels. Such is the case with global warming hysterics who have recently begun to make headway among concerned citizens.

When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came on the scene, she immediately began to make wild, hysterical predictions about the end of civilization. 

Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us, are looking up, and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”

To be fair to AOC, she was quoting a UN report that claims in 12 years, we’ll reach a “point of no return” when it comes to climate change. That is, if we don’t do something in 12 years, warming will be out of control and we’ll be unable to avert catastrophe.

Anthony Watts performs the necessary lobotomy, quoting from a 1989 AP report:

 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.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

But don’t try and stop AOC. She’s on a roll.

At an NAACP forum yesterday, AOC predicted that the city of Miami would disappear in a few years unless her Green New Deal is enacted.

Washington Examiner:

“When it comes to climate change, what is not realistic is not responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis — because what’s not realistic is Miami not existing in a few years,” the New York Democrat said Wednesday at an NAACP forum. “So we need to be realistic about the problem.”

AOC has tried to make climate change a racial issue because, well, it’s easier to sell that way and apparently all those people who were going to die in 2000 if we didn’t do anything about global warming are mostly people of color.

Actually, her agenda is not hidden at all. The “Green New Deal” has little to do with climate change and everything to do with “economic justice.”

In July, then-Ocasio-Cortez chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti  revealed that the Green New Deal was not “originally a climate thing at all … we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Chakrabarti, 33, said the Green New Deal was about changing the economy to make it more equitable.

“I think … it’s dual. It is both rising to the challenge that is existential around climate and it is building an economy that contains more prosperity,” he said. “More sustainability in that prosperity — and more broadly shared prosperity, equitability, and justice throughout.”

Read full story here…

Hot Air: Is Extreme Journalism Causing Global Warming?

If you want to fight climate change, tell extremist journalists to stifle their constant flow of hot air. The rhetoric in this story is spun out of thin air and pure conjecture and yet is presented as if it will most certainly become reality.  Well, it won’t. ⁃ TN Editor

To live in the 21st century is to live with the threat of weather growing more and more wicked.

Droughts, heat waves, and wildfires are growing more intense and dangerous from global warming and rising greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, we’re not reckoning with scientists’ predictions that worst-case weather scenarios will be more likely — and common — if we don’t change course. Only 41 percent of the American public believes climate change will affect them personally, a 2018 survey by Yale and George Mason University found.

Phoenix, Arizona, is susceptible to a heat wave that could peak at a staggering 122 degrees Fahrenheit. Southern California could face a wildfire that burns 1.5 million acres of land. Tampa, Florida, could see 26 feet of storm surge flooding from a hurricane, just below the record-breaking 28-foot storm surge of Hurricane Katrina.

In every case, these “Big Ones” could be huge disasters not just because of geography and proximity to threats, but also because of decisions to build homes and offices in certain places, ignoring nature. Many other communities in the same regions have similar vulnerabilities.

For too long, we’ve been complacent about climate change and the really scary possibilities of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more of average warming. Two degrees is the amount of warming we are likely to experience by midcentury, and it’s double the warming we’ve experienced to date. As David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth, put it in a Vox interview, “being scared about what is possible in the future can be motivating.”

Californians have long been taught to fear and prepare for the next big earthquake — and the state now has stronger infrastructure and wide engagement in earthquake readiness and planning. If more communities around the country feared climate “Big Ones,” they and their leaders would be more engaged in both stopping fossil fuel use and readying for disaster.

The scenarios in Phoenix, Southern California, and Tampa we describe in this three-part series are hypothetical. But they’re based on models scientists use to project what’s possible today, or tomorrow. There’s always uncertainty in these models. Things can change. These aren’t premonitions, but tastes of what’s possible.

We face more and more expensive disasters, and we are still building right in the paths of tempests. But our ability today to anticipate dangerous future weather creates an opportunity to reconcile with where we let people build, how we manage vegetation that could burn, and whether we replace more trees and soil with heat-magnifying concrete.

For a look at what’s in store, let’s begin in Arizona.

One day in the future, a massive wave of high-pressure air will park over Phoenix.

As the sun rises amid an already scorching summer, the pressure will hold the accumulated heat in place and the triple-digit temperatures will tick up higher and higher. 119 degrees Fahrenheit. 120. 121. 122. Health officials will warn citizens to stay inside, but some will venture out and emergency room visits will spike. At night, the temperature will drop only to 100.

It’s an alarming prospect for a rising population. Phoenix is home to 1.6 million people and is the second-fastest-growing city in the United States. The metro area is home to 4 million and is projected to grow to 6.6 million people by 2050. By then, more than 20 percent of the population will be older than 65.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that heat is already the deadliest weather phenomenon in the US, killing hundreds of people a year, more than floods, fires, earthquakes, lightning strikes, tornadoes, or hurricanes. With climate change, the threat is only getting worse, particularly for the elderly and the impoverished.

Over the next 24 hours of this heat wave, electricity use will surge higher as millions of air conditioners blast at full force, and the power grid will sputter as power lines strain. Power plants will run dangerously low on cooling water as the rivers that feed the region slow to a trickle and heat up. Generators will become less efficient.

The grid will succumb to brownouts and blackouts. Air conditioners will wheeze out, leaving many in homes that will grow dangerously hot. Water pumps will shut off, threatening people with dehydration. Freezers will thaw and food will spoil. Lines will form at gas stations as stalled pumps force drivers to refuel by hand.

Anxiety will grow about the region’s water supply. The Phoenix metropolitan region will already be in a drought and what little water is left will start becoming too hot to use. The nearby water reservoirs will be at record lows. Golf courses turn yellow as water restrictions go into effect.

By Day 5, city officials will declare a public health emergency. Officials will ask people to congregate in malls, libraries, and rec centers to minimize the cooling load.

Read full story here…


New Discoveries About Nitrogen Undermine Global Warming

Climate pseudo-scientists have not only misunderstood the carbon-cycle of life, but also the nitrogen-cycle, which dramatically affects the carbon-cycle. New discoveries about nitrogen greatly diminish man’s role in climate effects. ⁃ TN Editor

Nobody wants to listen to the evidence against Global Warming because the government doesn’t hand out money for research that fails to justify new taxes. Real scientists have just discovered a massive previously unknown source of nitrogen that could turn the Global Warming nonsense on its head. My bet is that it will be ignored. There is too much money on the table to just walk away.

This new discovery may dramatically change those dire global warming forecasts that are now a religion. The findings were published in the prestigious Journal Science, whereby the previous eco-science assumed the only source of nitrogen was the atmosphere. Scientists recently discovered that the planet holds vast storehouses of nitrogen, which is essential for plant life, in its bedrock.

This new discovery alters the entire theory behind Global Warming caused by humans. The University of California at Davis environmental scientist and co-author of the study, Ben Houlton, said, “This runs counter the centuries-long paradigm that has laid the foundation for the environmental sciences.”

Now, pay very close attention to the word “paradigm” which he is using. Clearly, if Houlton’s discovery of a vast storehouse of nitrogen is correct, then it would have an enormous impact on global warming predictions. Why?

Climate scientists have long known that plants offset some of the effects of climate change by absorbing and storing CO2. But climate scientists assumed that the ability for plants to perform this function was limited because the availability of nitrogen in the atmosphere was limited.

A 2003 study published in the same science journal stated, “There will not be enough nitrogen available to sustain the high carbon uptake scenarios.” You see scientists who have NOT been on the payroll for Global Warming understand this is all nonsense. Ronald Amundson, a soil biogeochemist at the University of California at Berkeley, publicly told Chemical and Engineering News that “If there is more nitrogen there than expected, then the constraints on plant growth in a high-CO2 world may not be as great as we think.”

Remember high school science class? Remember that with more nitrogen available, then plant life will still grow? And guess what, they absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating. That means the dire forecasts that we have 12 years to live being championed by AOC and the Democrats are completely inaccurate. The planet won’t warm as much with plant life absorbing the CO2 mankind pumps into the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, because this field of research is not under global warming grants, we should not expect this information to ever make it to the mainstream media.

Read full story here…

Soylent Green

Professor In Sweden Suggests ‘Eating Human Flesh To Save The Climate’

The 1973 movie Soylent Green, staring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, ended with the desperate proclamation, “It’s people!”, referring to society’s primary food source, Soylent Green.  ⁃ TN Editor

Oftentimes, the climate alarmists are their own worst enemy. It sounds reasonable enough that carbon emissions might have an impact on the climate, but it’s a rather nasty thing to prove, especially when alarmist predictions fail, over and over again. It’s far from the “scientific consensus.” But the alarmists don’t tone down their rhetoric — they ratchet it up to 11. They want to take away your plastic strawsyour cars, your burgers. Then there’s this behavioral scientist in Sweden who wants us to eat human flesh to deal with the effects of climate change.

No, this isn’t The Onion or The Babylon Bee. This is a Swedish professor appearing on Swedish television advocating for cannibalism, because climate change is just that dire. It can’t be lunacy if it’s done in the name of climate change, can it?

Earlier this week, Magnus Söderlund, professor of marketing and strategy at the Stockholm School of Economics, spoke at the Gastro Summit, a discussion on the future of food in the case of a climatepocalypse, The Epoch Times reported.

Söderlund spoke on the topic, “Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?” He argued for breaking down the ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and, well, cannibalism. The clip is available on State Swedish Television channel TV4 at this link. The end of the video’s description roughly translates to “the possibility of eating human flesh – to save the climate.” How cannibalism would have any impact on the climate is anyone’s guess, and it seems the professor is more focused on dealing with the aftereffects of climate change, anyway.

According to The Epoch Times, Söderlund dismissed taboos against cannibalism as “conservative.” He suggested that people’s resistance to eating human flesh “could be overcome, little by little, beginning with persuading people to just taste it.” In the video, he warned “that since food sources will be scarce in the future, people must be introduced to eating things they have thus far considered disgusting—among them, human flesh.”

While the professor also discussed breaking other taboos on eating pets and insects, his talk focused on cannibalism. Swedish articles on the debate use the term “mannisko-kötts branschen,” which translates to “the human flesh industry.”

According to his bio, Söderlund’s research focuses on “consumer behavior,” “reactions to marketing stimuli,” “psychological reactions,” and “our understanding of what it means to be a consumer (and a marketer) in a society increasingly obsessed with consumption.”

Taking this psychological approach, the professor said that people can be “tricked” into “making the right decisions.”

Söderlund appeared to equate resistance to cannibalism with capitalist selfishness. “Are we humans too selfish to live sustainably?” he asked.

Even the audience for a Climatepocalypse food summit seemed unwilling to break the “taboo” against eating human flesh. Then the professor asked the audience how many would be open to the idea, not many hands went up and some people groaned. The professor later told the media that 8 percent of conference participants said they would be open to trying cannibalism.

When asked if he would try eating human flesh, Söderlund said, “I feel somewhat hesitant but to not appeal overly conservative… I’d have to say… I’d be open to at least tasting it.”

Even if cannibalism were not grotesque, it would still be unhealthy. The Fore people in Papua New Guinea practiced ritualistic cannibalism. The women in the tribe would eat the human flesh of their dead relatives — so that worms and maggots did not eat it. The women — and some children — started dying of kuru, a disease meaning “shivering” or “trembling.”

Victims first had trouble walking, a sign they were about to lose control over their limbs. Then they would lose control over their emotions, and people dubbed the disease the “laughing death.” Within a year, the victims couldn’t get up off the floor, feed themselves, or control bodily functions.

Read full story here…

Green New Deal

Claim: Green New Deal Is Cheaper Than Climate Change

The wild predictions of cost for implementing the Green New Deal are staggering. Nonetheless, claims are now being made that GNC is cheap compared to the negative effects of ‘global warming’.

The irresponsible economic promotion of this is equally staggering. Even a college freshman taking Economics 101 knows that all economic activity is directly related to the amount of energy available to it. If energy consumption is curtailed, so is economic activity and thus, the welfare of all humans. The object of Sustainable Development is not to increase economic activity, but rather vastly reduce it.  ⁃ TN Editor

Recently, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rejected calls for a presidential primary debate dedicated to climate change. DNC chair Tom Perez argued that focusing on climate change alone would be unfair to those whose campaigns are more focused on other issues—which might be a compelling argument if experts said those matters had the potential to lead to civilizational collapse.

This was a missed opportunity to demand that the candidates who have not authored or signed on to an ambitious proposal to transform our economy and energy infrastructure over a relatively short time frame, like the Green New Deal, explain how they’ll pay for their more moderate approaches.

“But how will we pay for it?” is rarely asked in discussions of the military budget or trillion-dollar corporate tax cuts. But the media consistently demands that Democratic candidates offer detailed explanations of how they would finance Medicare for All or dealing with the student loan crisis.

It’s the same with climate change. When Bernie Sanders released his climate proposal, The New York Times described it as a “$16 Trillion Climate Plan” and noted that it was the “most expensive proposal from the field of Democratic presidential candidates aimed at reining in planet-warming greenhouse gases” in the very first sentence of the story. Newsweek ran a piece headlined “Here’s How Andrew Yang’s Nearly $5 Trillion Climate Plan Stacks Up Against His Opponents.” And many outlets promulgated a scary but utterly bogus estimate, apparently just invented by Republicans, that Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s plan for a Green New Deal would cost taxpayers $93 trillion.

If we’re to have any hope of mobilizing the effort scientists tell us is necessary, we have to turn this question around. Because the reality is that even if we set aside the human and biospheric costs of climate change—the excess deaths from extreme weather and encroaching diseases, the refugee crises, habitat loss, and mass extinctions—the economic cost of allowing temperatures to rise even a couple of degrees above that target is simply staggering.

According to some estimates, they would dwarf the price tag associated with even the most ambitious proposals to tackle the problem, and that’s not even factoring in the new economic opportunities that transitioning away from fossil fuels would confer on countries that take the lead in that process.

Although the cost estimates vary, there is almost as much agreement on this broad point among economists who have studied the potential impacts as there is within the scientific community that human activities are warming the planet.

In 2015, the Economist Intelligence Unit compiled a peer-reviewed report warning that “the asset management industry—and thus the wider community of investors of all sizes— is facing the prospect of significant losses from the effects of climate change.” Using an average of current warming models, they projected that investors would lose $4.2 trillion in assets by the end of the century, “roughly on a par with the total value of all the world’s listed oil and gas companies or Japan’s entire GDP.” The researchers added that “the average losses to be expected are not the only source of concern; on the contrary, the outliers, the particularly extreme scenarios, may matter most of all.” In the worst-case scenario they considered, 10 percent of the world’s assets would be wiped out.

That’s just the losses to investors. They note that “while the value of future losses from the private sector is substantial, this is dwarfed by the forecast harms when considered from a government point of view.”

Read full story here…

climate change

Climate Change: Five Surprising, Peer-Reviewed Facts

Despite the political rhetoric to the contrary, indisputable facts about the earth’s climate remain. Politicalization is designed to drive the world into Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

On the weekend of August 10–11, as if in chorus, major online news websites called on people to stop consuming meat. The calls echoed a recent United Nations report that recommended doing so to fight climate change.

It surprised many, but there are other more surprising facts about climate change that are hardly published in our everyday news media.

Below are some facts—scientifically recognized and published in peer-reviewed journals—that may raise your eyebrows.

1. Climate Has Always Changed—Always

All proxy temperature data sets reveal that there have been cyclical changes in climate in the past 10,000 years. There is not a single climate scientist who denies this well-established fact. It doesn’t matter what your position on the causes and magnitude and danger (or not) of current climate change is—you have to be on board on this one. Climate has always changed. And it has changed in both directions, hot and cold. Until at least the 17th century, all these changes occurred when almost all humans were hunters, gatherers, and farmers.

2. Temperature Increase in the Past Was Not Caused by Humans

Industrialization did not happen until the 17th century. Therefore, no prior changes in climate were driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide. In the last 2,000 years alone, global temperatures rose at least twice (around the 1st and 10th centuries) to levels very similar to today’s, and neither of those warm periods were caused by humans.

3. The Arctic and Antarctic Are Doing Better than Ever!

Yes, you read that right. The 10,000-year Holocene paleoclimatology records reveal that both the Arctic and Antarctic are in some of their healthiest states. The only better period for the poles was the 17th century, during the Little Ice Age, when the ice mass levels were higher than today’s. For the larger part of the past 10,000 years, the ice mass levels were lower than today’s. Despite huge losses in recent decades, ice mass levels are at or near their historic highs.

4. Polar Bears and Other Species Are Not Dying But Flourishing!

If you paid attention to the previous fact, then the following one is not hard to understand. Polar bears—often used as a symbol of climate doomsday—are one of the key species in the Arctic. Contrary to the hype surrounding their extinction fear, the population numbers have actually increased in the past two decades.

Last year, the Canadian government considered increasing polar bear killing quotas as their increasing numbers posed a threat to the Inuit communities living in the Nunavut area.

The increase in population size flies in the face of those who continue to claim otherwise in the popular news media. And it is not just the polar bears in the Arctic. Other critical species elsewhere, like tigers, are also making a comeback.

5. Carbon Dioxide Is Not a Temperature Control Knob

While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true.

The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t.

This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob.

These are some of the many climate facts that the media refuses to acknowledge, like the impending solar minimum that NASA has predicted for the next two solar cycles between 2021 and 2041, ushering in a period of global cooling like it did during the solar minimum of 17th century.

There are other facts that run contrary to popular belief, such that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported low confidence that global warming—manmade or not—was driving increases in extreme weather events.

The list is endless. It would be naïve not to acknowledge this blatant and lopsided reporting in our news media.

Read full story here…

Green New Dealers: ‘Climate Deniers’ Must Be Censored And Silenced

Green Technocrats are demanding that global warming critics be silenced because they are exposing the total fraud being perpetrated on the world in order to promote Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

The Climate Mobilization, a group pushing for a World War II-scale national mobilization to fight global warming, condemned the media for pursuing “objectivity” by giving air time to “climate deniers.” Aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the organization wants the media to silence all voices opposing their climate alarmism.

“Some media outlets are sacrificing the future of our planet for the sake of appearing objective,” Margaret Klein Salamon, founder and executive director of The Climate Mobilization, said in a news release Saturday.

“This idea of equating climate deniers with scientific experts is a dangerous practice which frames the threat to our planet, our existence as an ongoing debate,” Klein Salamon added. “I don’t think sacrificing the future of our planet in exchange for a look of ‘objectivity’ is an even exchange. It’s one the coming generation will judge us on, if we don’t move with the urgency necessary to fight back against global warming and win.”

In other words, climate alarmists aren’t just calling for radical changes to America to stave off some hypothetical climate disaster — they’re also calling for opposing voices to be silenced. “Science” can only have one voice, and that voice must be Chicken Little.

The Climate Mobilization seized on a Newsweek article about a study from Nature Communications. The study’s authors claimed that the U.S. news media gives “climate change deniers too much prominence by placing people with little understanding of the complexities involved in the same league as top scientists.”

“It’s time to stop giving these people visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority,” University of California Merced Professor Alex Petersen said in a statement. Petersen and his team traced the digital footprints of voices for and against climate alarmism across 100,000 media articles. They found that about half of mainstream outlets seek out “climate denying” experts.

Many outlets will present both sides of the issue, including one scientist echoing the climate alarmist mantra and another expert who disagrees — and who therefore must not be a real scientist, the article suggested.

“It’s not just false balance; the numbers show that the media are ‘balancing’ experts—who represent the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists—with the views of a relative handful of non-experts,” Professor LeRoy Westerling, the study’s author, said in a statement. “Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials. They are not in the same league with top scientists. They aren’t even in the league of the average career climate scientist.”

Yet the Nature Communications study notes that 224 of the 386 “climate change contrarians” quoted by the media have at least one publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The study did not mention how many of the “climate change scientists” quoted by the media had published articles, but the authors selected 224 of their papers and showed how their papers were more heavily cited.

If the professional world of climate science is dominated by the ideology of climate alarmism, it would make sense that climate alarmists are more heavily cited than climate skeptics. In January 2017, Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, resigned, calling out the alarmist ideology that increasingly dominates her field.

“I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science,” Curry wrote. “Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”

“How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists),” Curry wondered.

In other words, climate science is becoming an ideological echo chamber that rewards alarmism and silences dissenting voices, even when the dissenters are good scientists like Curry.

The study also parroted the blatantly false claim that there is a scientific consensus on the issue — citing the Cook study from 2013. The Cook study notoriously misrepresented the scientific literature to claim a 97 percent consensus, and activists continue to cite it as if it were gospel truth.

The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of the nearly 12,000 papers analyzed, the study discounted 7,930 — 66.4 percent — because they allegedly did not state a position. Then the study added up the papers it claimed endorsed man-made climate change and the papers it claimed opposed man-made climate change, and found that 97 percent of the papers that stated a position favored global warming.

But here’s the kicker: many scientists whose papers were included in the study complained that the papers were misinterpreted as supporting man-made global warming when they did not.

Read full story here…

University Of London Bans Burgers To Help Save The Planet

A clever movie plot is coming to life when the lunatic inmates take over the insane asylum, while throwing the legitimate staff into the padded cells. ‘Carbon-shaming’ is the new meme, and is patently anti-human and anti-civilization.

Why? Because carbon is absolutely essential to human life on earth.

 ⁃ TN Editor

Beef burgers have been banned by a university as part of efforts to tackle the climate emergency.

Goldsmiths, University of London said it is to remove all beef products from sale from next month as the institution attempts to become carbon neutral by 2025.

Students will also face a 10p levy on bottles of water and single-use plastic cups when the academic year starts to discourage use of the products.

The college’s new Warden, Professor Frances Corner, said staff and students “care passionately about the future of our environment” and that “declaring a climate emergency cannot be empty words”.

The move has been backed by Goldsmiths Students’ Union, with president Joe Leam saying that the university has a “huge carbon footprint” and that the promise to eradicate this in the next few years is needed.

As well as the beef ban and 10p levy on single-use water bottles and plastic cups, there are plans to install more solar panels across the college’s New Cross campus in south-east London and switch to a 100% clean energy supplier as soon as possible.

Officials said Goldsmiths will also continue to invest in its allotment area and identify other places where planting could help to absorb carbon dioxide, and will review how all students can access modules which cover climate change and the role of both individuals and organisations in reducing carbon emissions.

Prof Corner said: “The growing global call for organisations to take seriously their responsibilities for halting climate change is impossible to ignore.

“Though I have only just arrived at Goldsmiths, it is immediately obvious that our staff and students care passionately about the future of our environment and that they are determined to help deliver the step change we need to cut our carbon footprint drastically and as quickly as possible.

“Declaring a climate emergency cannot be empty words. I truly believe we face a defining moment in global history and Goldsmiths now stands shoulder to shoulder with other organisations willing to call the alarm and take urgent action to cut carbon use.”

Figures show that Goldsmiths emits around 3.7 million kg of carbon emissions each year, the college said.

Referring to the statistic in a blog, Mr Leam said: “It is clear our university has a huge carbon footprint. The promise to have ended this by 2030 at the latest, with the hope of doing so by 2025, is one which is needed.

“Whilst this plan/action is only the beginning, and much work is yet to be done, it is fantastic to see Goldsmiths taking responsibility and responding to its impact on the climate.”

Read full story here…

Another UN Climate Report Calls For Change To Human Diet

Is the UN promoting eastern religions to the world? Absolutely. Veganism/vegetarianism are tightly correlated with Gaianism (Gaia or ‘Mother Earth’ worship), Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism and Paganism.

The World Atlas reports that “Vegans in the US vary from 0.5 to 5% with 70% of those who adopted the practice abandoning it” ⁃ TN Editor

Efforts to curb greenhouse gas-emissions and the impacts of global warming will fall significantly short without drastic changes in global land use, agriculture and human diets, leading researchers warn in a high-level report commissioned by the United Nations.

The special report on climate and land by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes plant-based diets as a major opportunity for mitigating and adapting to climate change ― and includes a policy recommendation to reduce meat consumption.

On 8 August, the IPCC released a summary of the report, which is designed to inform upcoming climate negotiations amidst the worsening global climate crisis. More than 100 experts compiled the report in recent months, around half of whom hail from developing countries.

“We don’t want to tell people what to eat,” says Hans-Otto Pörtner, an ecologist who co-chairs the IPCC’s working group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. “But it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.”

Researchers also note the relevance of the report to tropical rainforests, where concerns are mounting about accelerating rates of deforestation. The Amazon rainforests is a huge carbon sink that acts to cool global temperature, but rates of deforestation are rising, in part due to the policies and actions of the government of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.

Unstopped, deforestation could turn much of the remaining Amazon forests into a degraded type of desert, possibly releasing over 50 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere in 30 to 50 years, says Carlos Nobre, a climate scientist at the University of São Paolo in Brazil. “That’s very worrying,” he says.

“Unfortunately, some countries don’t seem to understand the dire need of stopping deforestation in the tropics,” says Pörtner. “We cannot force any government to interfere. But we hope that our report will sufficiently influence public opinion to that effect.”

Paris goals

While fossil fuel burning for energy generation and transport garners the most attention, activities relating to land management, including agriculture and forestry, produce almost a quarter of heat-trapping gases. The race to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels ― the goal of the international Paris climate agreementreached in 2015 ― might be a lost battle unless land is used in a more sustainable and climate-friendly way, the latest IPCC report says.

The report highlights the need to preserve and restore forests, which soak up carbon from the air, and peat lands, which release carbon if dug up. Cattle raised on pastures of cleared woodland are particularly emission-intensive, it says. This practice often comes with large-scale deforestation such as in Brazil or Colombia. Cows also produce large amount of methane, a potent greenhouse-gas, as they digest their food.

The report states with high confidence that balanced diets featuring plant-based, and sustainably-produced animal-sourced, food “present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health”.

By 2050, dietary changes could free millions of square kilometres of land, and reduce global CO2 emissions by up to eight billion tonnes per year, relative to business as usual, the scientists estimate.

“It’s really exciting that the IPCC is getting such a strong message across,” says Ruth Richardson, the Toronto, Canada-based executive director at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, a strategic coalitions of philanthropic foundations. “We need a radical transformation, not incremental shifts, towards a global land use and food system that serves our climate needs.”

Read full story here…