Posts

NOAA Whistleblower Claims Data Were ‘Adjusted’ to Make Global Warming Seem Worse

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A scientist-whistleblower has accused the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of diddling with temperature data, adjusting it so that it better accorded with political desires.

The Daily Mail is reporting that Dr John Bates, a now-retired climate data expert, late of the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), a branch of NOAA, claimed the agency “breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

Bates said that Thomas Karl, who was until recently the director of NCEI, was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy” (ellipsis original).

The data, Bates claimed, was never “subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process.” When Bates complained, “His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.”

Karl and eight others authored the “Pausebuster” paper, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.” It reported “an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades” and which claimed “These results do not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature.”

The “slowdown,” or rather the non-increase in global temperatures for almost two decades, was notable in satellite data. It was also noticed in surface-based data, until that data was statistically adjusted by Karl and others. These adjustments of surface records, which are not uncommon, are also curious. It usually happens that older data are lowered, and recent data pushed higher, making it appear that temperatures are increasing. Are these adjustments legitimate, or the result of confirmation bias, or potentially fraudulent?

How dramatic are the adjustments? As the Daily Mail reports, “The Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade.”

This is three-thousandths of a degree higher. Three-thousandths. To appreciate the magnitude, it helps to say it aloud: three-thousandths of a degree. And not just three-thousandths of a degree, but three-thousandths of a degree per every ten years. If panic at the news of higher temperatures was your first reaction, ensure it is panic in slow motion.

The global rate is the product of land and sea measurements. On the sea adjustments, “Thomas Karl and his colleagues … tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade — as stated in version 3 — to 0.099C per decade.”

Even assuming this correction is valid, the final result is only a tenth of a degree a decade. If the global sea temperature really is caused to act like a straight upwards line, which is physically extremely doubtful, then after ten years, the temperature at sea will be one-tenth of a degree (on average) warmer than previously thought. Make that panic super-slow motion.

But even then, it’s not likely the correction is right.

But Dr. Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source — water taken in by ships. This, Dr. Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden — so affecting temperature readings.

Bates said, “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships.”

Similar statistical manipulations were done to land-temperature data, with adjustments being of the same low level. Bates not only questioned the timing and direction of adjustments, but said the programs used to make them were “highly experimental” and “afflicted by serious bugs.”

Karl “admitted” to the Daily Mail that “the data had not been archived when the paper was published,” making replication by colleagues impossible or difficult. Karl also said “the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the [data] would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.”

Even assuming all is aboveboard, what most don’t realize is that surface temperature measurements are not static; they change year to year. These changes induce uncertainty, which has so far been badly underestimated. This is why claims of thousandths of a degree change are, at best, dubious, and are more likely subject to large uncertainties. (For more from the author of “NOAA Whistleblower Claims Data Were ‘Adjusted’ to Make Global Warming Seem Worse” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Global Warming Alarmists Plead: Save the Children by Not Having Them

/0 Comments/in , /by

Global warming will, of course, doom us all. That is, if the models created by scientists are any guide. Which they aren’t, since these models have for decades predicted temperatures far greater than what we actually see.

Too, our greatest natural disasters occurred long ago before global warming loomed, (as this site documents). In 1931, a flood killed perhaps two million Chinese. Forest fires in the USA are far, far below their destructive peak in the late 1920s. An awful flood happened in 1936, the same year a heat-wave killed some 12,000 Americans, which again was the same year of the highest maximum temperature.

Still, even though tornadoes, floods, fires and hurricanes are way down, the consensus is that global warming will kill us all. A hundredth of a degree increase in temperature is nothing to sneeze at, you know.

Who will fare worst in our coming climate apocalypse? That’s right! The children! The promised destruction of our littlest ones is why NPR and a group of academic philosophers say we should “protect our kids by not having them.”

Protect our kids by not having them? That’s like saying the way to protect your house from fire is by not building it, or that the way to protect against crop failure is to cease farming.

Barren wombs as cure for our climate “catastrophe” makes sense to philosophers Colin Hickey, Travis N. Rieder and Jake Earl, who defend the idea in “Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change,” which will appear in the journal Social Theory and Practice (PDF). They say that “threats posed by climate change justify population engineering, the intentional manipulation of the size and structure of human populations” (emphasis in original).

Now all philosophical arguments start with premises, the assumptions which must be accepted to get the argument going. Here are theirs:

Two uncontroversial ideas set the stage for this article. First, climate change is among the most significant moral problems contemporary societies face, in terms of its urgency, global expanse and the magnitude of its attending harms. Second, population plays an important role in determining just how bad climate change will be.

Balderdash: both ideas are controversial and, as shown above, both are far from the truth. This is not a good beginning to their argument. As Aristotle noted, “The least degree of deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.” Let’s see if that prophecy holds here.

From their premises, the authors derive this:

In procreating one makes a whole new person who will emit [greenhouse gases]. But in fact, it is more than that. By creating a new person, one makes it possible that he or she will go on to create more people, who are then able to go and create even more people.

Who knew?

This radical deduction led to this conclusion: “The question, it seems, is not whether we should implement some sort of fertility-reducing population engineering program, but rather which interventions such a program should include.”

From there it was a short hop to the heading “Population Engineering Policies: Coercion and Choice Enhancement.”

Did somebody say coercion?

Somebody did. “This includes policies that involve straightforward violations of citizens’ autonomy or bodily integrity.” Not to worry. “Straightforwardly coercive interventions to reduce human population growth are almost always wrong.”

Almost always.

The other end of the scale of “total coercion” is pestering the population with putrid propaganda: e.g., “Poster campaigns featuring images of small, happy families and national slogans have been used widely” in other countries. While finding it distasteful, they don’t outright reject “outright misinformation, deception or manipulation,” and assure us they “would not endorse just any token preference-adjusting intervention to reduce fertility.” Grand of them.

They also put forward “women’s education and improved access to reproductive health care.” Now these are philosophers and you’d think they’d know better than to employ cheap euphemism. Reproductive health care means abortion and contraception, where there is no reproduction and where the health of any child “accidentally” conceived is permanently removed, and the would-be mothers endangered into the bargain.

Stripped of euphemism, the authors recommend active killing to reduce the population.

And if you’re “rich,” look out:

Our outline for a global population engineering program suggests that the greater a would-be procreator’s wealth, the more appropriate it will be to target that person with interventions to the right on the coercion spectrum. This is justifiable not only pragmatically, but also morally: since wealth is a fairly reliable proxy for individuals’ GHG emissions, and so for their carbon legacy, it is morally justifiable to exert greater pressure on wealthy people’s procreative behaviors.

Some people would still be allowed to have babies. Who decides who should procreate future GHG generators? Well, folks like author Travis Rieder, who is bravely passing on his genes (he has a daughter).

There isn’t a scintilla of a hint of a whisper of a ghost of a figment of an idea from these men that they might be wrong. But Aristotle was right. Start with silliness, end in lunacy. (For more from the author of “Global Warming Alarmists Plead: Save the Children by Not Having Them” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

UN: Brexit Means We Have to ‘Recalibrate’ Our Global Warming Plans

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.K.’s Thursday referendum on European Union membership means that the United Nation’s global warming plans need to be rewritten, according to the executive secretary of the Paris global warming deal.

The referendum, often called Brexit, significantly changes the agreement, which assumed Britain would remain part of the EU.

“From the point of view of the Paris Agreement, the UK is part of the EU and has put in its effort as part of the EU so anything that would change that would require a recalibration,” Christiana Figueres, one of the architects of the Paris global warming deal, said the day before the Brexit vote. “In principle, it is actually, historically, we say, as humankind, we are moving towards larger and larger tents of collaboration […] rather than in the opposite way.”

Progressive outlets like The Guardian are already claiming that Brexit will reduce environmental protections and create more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The U.N.’s Paris global warming agreement will cost a minimum $12.1 trillion over the next 25 years, according to calculations performed by environmental activists. However, these estimates are likely low, as they exclude energy efficiency measures which will bring the total to $16.5 trillion, according to projections from the International Energy Agency.

That’s almost as much money as the U.S. federal government spent on defense in 2015, according to 2015 spending numbers from the bipartisan Committee For Responsible Federal Budget. The required annual spending is almost 3.7 times more than the $131.57 billion China spent on its military in 2014.

The deal, which was heavily encouraged by the Obama administration, encourages nearly 200 countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, slowing global warming. Secretary of State John Kerry however admitted that reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and the developed world will not help the environment or even slow down global warming. (For more from the author of “UN: Brexit Means We Have to ‘Recalibrate’ Our Global Warming Plans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Evidence of Global Warming Found on a Planet With No Humans

/0 Comments/in , , /by

New evidence, as reported by the Washington Times, suggests that global warming is happening on a planet not inhabited by a single human… Mars.

The red planet, which moved closer to the Earth on Monday than at any other time since 2005, has retreated from a glacial period that would have covered large areas in white before the thaw about 370,000 years ago, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science.

The research was conducted using an instrument on board the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter that allowed an unprecedented examination of “the most recent Martian ice age recorded in the planet’s north polar ice cap,” according to a NASA press release.

Scientists attribute the shift in Mars’ climate to natural variations that occur over “thousands of years.” Changes in the planet’s orbit and tilt of the planet’s axis move Mars in and out of ice ages over time.

“As the warm polar period ends, polar ice begins accumulating again, while ice is lost from mid-latitudes. This retreat and regrowth of polar ice is exactly what Smith and colleagues see in the record revealed by the [Shallow Subsurface Radar] images,” said NASA.

One wonders if Earth’s climate is undergoing a similar natural shift. (For more from the author of “Evidence of Global Warming Found on a Planet With No Humans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Global Delusion of Global Warming

/3 Comments/in , /by

The Global Climate Change insanity that is gripping the world is not the first time that an intellectually dishonest and misleading argument has seized the attention of and been championed by opinion makers and the most wealthy of business and financial leaders. Nor is it the first time that bad science has become the foundation for flawed policy and been embraced by political leaders. The blind religious devotion surrounding “Climate Change” reminds me of the time starting a little more than 100 years ago, when prominent scientists and physicians, with the backing of the leading industrialists and philanthropists, advocated selective breeding, sterilization and euthanasia in order to create the “best” populations:

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup. Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples; supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws; and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and “immoral”. Eugenics was also supported by African Americans intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, Thomas Wyatt Turner, and many academics at Tuskegee University, Howard University, and Hampton University; however they believed the best blacks were as good as the best whites and “The Talented Tenth” of all races should mix. W. E. B. Du Bois believed “only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race’s heritage of moral iniquity.”

The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune. In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan. The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement. In years to come, the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees and concluded that those who were unfit came from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, Harry H. Laughlin, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the “unfit”. Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods; Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family; Grant favored all of the above and more, even entertaining the idea of extermination. The Eugenics Record Office later became the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

(Read more from “The Global Delusion of Global Warming” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Most Idiotic Aspects of the Paris Global Warming Conference

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Paris UN conference, known as COP21, is upon us; a darkening gloom gathers; apprehension builds. It was therefore a tense and important moment Sunday at Charles de Gaulle airport when China President Xi Jin-ping stepped off his airplane into a sea of cameras. The Communist-party approved announcer said Xi was in Paris to “combat climate change.”

This is my entry for the Most Asinine Statement About Global Warming. I admit that it has stiff competition. With politicians, bureaucrats, activists and, bottoming out the list, mainstream reporters converging on the City of Light to try and convince the world that the sky has long since fallen, and that the only way to prop it back up is to spend, spend, spend your money, the idiocy is going to fly thick and fast. My humble entry might therefore not appear to stand a chance. But it’s a sure winner, as I’ll prove in a moment.

But first, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, doubtless upset President Xi had scored first, and, eager not to be blamed for a widening asininity gap between these two up-and-coming carbon-fueled economic powerhouses, retorted that the West suffered from “climate imperialism.”

India needs cheap, reliable, plentiful and almost completely harmless coal to survive, let alone compete with its neighbor to the north(east). But politicians and oil companies are gunning for coal, it being the easiest target. India would be in some pretty deep kimchi if it were strong-armed into switching to more expensive energy sources. So Modi wisely had his chief economic adviser float the imperialism phrase. It’s a short-hand way of saying, “Say whatever you want. You got yours, and now we’re going to get ours.” God bless India.

Laurent Fabius, French minister of foreign affairs, and no piker in the silly sayings department, said, “The coffins containing those slain by les voyous ISIS have been removed from the main meeting hall so the global warming conference can start on time.”

Kidding! He actually said negotiators would be browbeaten into signing an agreement that was “universal, legally binding, durable and dynamic.” This sounds imposing, but that’s because the English translation misses the nuances of the original French. A more careful rendition notes that “durable and dynamic” means “the words on le papier will mean whatever we want them to.” Which is not bad news when you think about it.

Community-Organizer-in-Chief Barack Obama said that the global warming conference would be a “rebuke” to the Allahu Akbarists who bloodied the streets of Paris. Surely he’s right about this. In fact, Mr. Obama might have been behind the recently leaked CIA documents containing top secret chatter from terrorist cells embedded in the Syrian refugees he is so intent on importing to our shores.

One transcript ran:

“Hey, Achmed. They’re going through with COP21 even though we killed all those people.”

“I feel so rebuked. I shall never kill again.”

Meanwhile, ignoramuses who couldn’t integrate ex if you pointed a gun at their heads (and, as we know, this is not now an impossibility) broke an agreement with President Hollande to keep off the streets and ran amok in Paris, taunting les flics to try and stop them. Which the cops were happy to do, squirting tear gas and pepper spray at their large noses.

Now not one of these activists or politicians could tell you why the sky is blue, yet each is certain sure doom is just around the next corner, an apocalypse to be caused by a few stray carbon dioxide molecules released every time we exhale. Their monumental ignorance, coupled with a dose of hubris lethal to ordinary men, is what is causing them to utter such historical stupidities like “We must combat” or “stop climate change.”

Nothing can stop the climate from changing. Nothing. I don’t care how much you care. It doesn’t matter if you confiscated every farthing from every earthing and flung it into the air. It wouldn’t even make a difference if you convinced everybody to jump into a (not-so) giant hole and buried them. The earth’s climate would go right on changing, changing, changing. It cannot be stopped. Not ever.

Whatever comes out of Paris will not make one whit of difference to the climate. To claim that some flimsy piece of paper will stop the unstoppable, or even that we can hold temperatures back 2 degrees C when we can’t even predict what next year will be like, is not science. It is not even science fiction. It is a true French farce. (For more from the author of “Most Idiotic Aspects of the Paris Global Warming Conference” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Scientists Enlist the Big Gun to Get Climate Action

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: AP The cold hard numbers of science haven’t spurred the world to curb runaway global warming. So as climate negotiators struggle in Paris, some scientists who appealed to the rational brain are enlisting what many would consider a higher power: the majesty of faith.

It’s not God versus science, but followers of God and science together trying to save humanity and the planet, they say.

Physicist John Schellnhuber, founder of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said he has been coming to these international talks for 11 years and essentially seen negotiators throw up their hands and say “sorry guys we tried our best.” And no one protested. But this time, with the power of Pope Francis’ encyclical earlier this year calling global warming a moral issue and an even more energized interfaith community, Schellnhuber feels the world’s faithful are watching and will hold world leaders accountable. (Read more from “Scientists Enlist the Big Gun to Get Climate Action” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism

/1 Comment/in , /by

A sociologist with no training in the physical sciences is puzzled why most Americans think the world is not doomed by global warming. So flummoxed is Yale’s Justin Farrell that he decided to study the question in the most scientific way possible. And he managed to publish his results, “Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change,” in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

What do you think his conclusions were? Perhaps that thirty years of failed temperature predictions boosted Americans’ skepticism? Or that the obvious eagerness of politicians to leverage exaggerated fears have left many skittish? Or maybe it’s the dearth of severe storms, despite the many promises that floods and droughts would drown and parch us all?

No, none of that. Farrell discovered that private groups spent their own money to say that things were not as bad as alarmists claimed. He told TheWashington Post that these “contrarian efforts have been so effective for the fact that they have made it difficult for ordinary Americans to even know who to trust.” Indeed, I, myself a climate scientist, no longer trust anything non-scientists like Farrell tell me about global warming (which he incorrectly calls “climate change”).

Farrell is right about one thing: Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda.

You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies, spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates — billions of dollars.

And then you also have every major and minor university — with contributions from every department, from Critical Literature Theory to Women’s Studies — all with their hands out and eager to provide the support Greenpeace, the government and others desire. Add to that another two or three dozen think tanks which are also sniffing for grants or which support government intervention to do the impossible and stop the earth’s climate from changing.

Every scientific organization which is dependent on grant money has released a statement saying “something must be done” about global warming. They’re supported, fawned over and feted by just about every news and media agency. And don’t forget the leadership of most major organized religions have their own statements — and their hands out.

We’re not done: we still have to add the dozens of Solyndra-type companies eager to sell the government products, to get “green” subsidies or to support its global-warming agenda. Included in that list are oil companies. Oil companies?

Yes. Oil giants aren’t foolish. They want to benefit — and also don’t want to suffer from — the mania that surrounds all things climate change. Their activities are often mercenary: Oil companies will and do fund research that casts a bad light on coal, its main competitor, in hopes of lessening competition but also in expectation of securing peace with activist groups.

For instance, ExxonMobil recently pledged to give Stanford University “up to $100 million in grant money over 10 years to support climate and energy research.” As reported by the website No Tricks Zone:

Four big international companies, including the oil giant ExxonMobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming … In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program …

Shell Oil since 1999 handed out $8.5 million in environmental grants. Like ExxonMobil, many grants flowed to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, but $1.2 million went to the Nature Conservancy; the remainder was spread to several different environmentally-minded groups.

According to The Washington Times British Petroleum regularly gave to several environmental groups, such as “Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, various branches of the Audubon Society, the Wildlife Habitat Council.” It’s important to understand that these groups accepted the money BP gave them. The Washington Post confirms the Nature Conservancy pocketed over “$10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations.”

Joanne Nova has documented the massive amount of money pouring from government into the pockets of individuals and groups associated with the environment. “The U.S. government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” $79 billion.

And Farrell, our stalwart sociologist, nabbed $126,000 from the EPA between 2012 and 2014, and another $18,500 from the National Science Foundation to study the environment and society. Doubtless he will be similarly rewarded in the future. Funny he never mentioned his funding, nor the funding of all those pushing scenarios of the world’s end.

All that is on one side. And on the other? Well, there’s a handful of privately funded think tanks, a smattering of generous individuals and businesses, a journalist here and there, and (ahem) a few skeptical scientists scratching what living they can, all trying vainly to tell the world that the sky isn’t falling and that government intervention isn’t needed.

In the interest of full disclosure, the total amount of any consideration I have ever received from any oil company, or any oil company affiliate, is, rounded to the nearest dollar, $0. But it was in cash. Skepticism of environmental apocalypse does not pay. (For more from the author of “There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Our Leaders Have Spoken: Global Warming Causes Terrorism

/10 Comments/in , /by

So global warming caused ISIS to dispatch a team of bloodthirsty malevolent maniacs to Paris to slaughter as many non-Muslims, and to gain as much publicity, as possible. Bernie Sanders said so.

Who remembers when members of ISIS placed a man in the path of a tank, ran the tank over the man popping him like a balloon, and then ISIS posted videos bragging of it? Global warming made them do it. Hillary Clinton says so.

Hey: how about when ISIS corralled a group of Christian women living in Syria and then raped a goodly proportion of them to death and shot a few others for fun? Global warming again. And let’s not forget the many times orange-clad men were led to a beach to have their heads shaved off by ISIS. Allahu Akbar? No! Global Warming!

This isn’t me saying it. It’s Barack Obama. He said global warming is the biggest threat we face. But Mr. Obama was only echoing his betters who will gather in two weeks in Paris to decide the pre-determined conclusion that global warming is a security threat of such magnitude that we are forced to sign over control of significant portions of our economies to the United Nations. (Of course, our dear leaders will say climate change and not global warming, but we won’t make that mistake.)

What a sight it will be! Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, David Cameron, even Francois Hollande himself, will march somberly through blood-stained streets, file past the many coffins from the Paris attack, proceed to the UN’s padded conference room, and there from on high they will announce to the world that the horrors they have witnessed were caused by global warming. And that if we don’t act now, global warming will cause more men to suddenly wake one morning and say to themselves, “I will kill in the name of Allah.”

Global warming! Is there nothing it cannot do?

That is a rhetorical question, friends. The answer is clear to any thinking person. Global warming can do anything. Well, any bad thing. Global warming cannot do good things.

Only problem is, there hasn’t been any global warming for almost twenty years. Oh, the temperature has bounced around a bit, up one year, down the next, but it hasn’t been advancing as climatologists have promised us. Know what that means? You guessed it. Global warming is even more powerful than we could have imagined!

Yes: not only is actual global warming deadly, even the thought of it can cause men to kill. Since the globe did not in fact warm, but global warming surely caused ISIS to commit atrocity after atrocity — our leaders could not be wrong on so fundamental a point — it must then be that just sitting and contemplating what might happen is what caused these fanatics to spring into action.

Global warming, we’re told, is also going to cause more deaths by natural disasters. It hasn’t done so yet, but it will. Actually, deaths due to natural disasters such as wildfires, tornadoes, extreme temperatures, droughts and storms are at a ridiculously low level compared to a century ago. Just as a for instance, storms killed about about 1 out of every million people in 1900, but this fell to about half that many by 2010. (Don’t forget the world population rose from about 1.65 billion in 1900 to about 6.7 billion in 2010, so you have to normalize deaths by population.)

There were no recorded deaths by drought in 2010, but there were some 126-thousand deaths in 1900, way before global warming wrapped its heated tentacles around the earth. Deaths by drought are important because, our leaders tell us, it was drought and heat that caused the Syrian conflict, which in turn caused the refugee crisis. Of course, it wasn’t actual drought and heat, because Syrian weather has been near average (wheat production, for instance, is up), so once again it was only the promise of future doom that counted.

This future doom is no small thing. ISIS gleefully announced that it used the promise-of-global-warming-caused refugee crisis to smuggle “thousands” of cutthroats into Europe. How many they’re sneaking into New Orleans, where Mr. Obama has directed our share of Syrians to go, has not yet been determined.

Gets mighty warm and sticky down in the Big Easy. Thoughts can’t help but turn to what it would be like if, as promised, the temperatures soar another one- to two-tenths of a degree by mid century. Who could possibly tolerate a shift as dramatic as that? Besides my parents, who migrate from Michigan to Florida each winter for its warming climes? If President Obama is serious about the link between global warming and terrorism, perhaps he should send Muslim refugees from Syria, among whom are surely ISIS agents, to Siberia. Vladimir Putin won’t mind watching over them. (For more from the author of “Our Leaders Have Spoken: Global Warming Causes Terrorism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s Trip to the UN ‘Global Warming’ Summit Emits More CO2 Than Driving 72 Cars for a Year

/4 Comments/in , /by

President Barack Obama may warn that carbon dioxide is causing global warming, but his flight to Paris to join other world leaders at the United Nations climate summit emitted more CO2 than driving 72 cars for a year.

Obama’s Paris jaunt will send more CO2 into the atmosphere than 31 American homes‘ energy usage for an entire year. The president’s trip is equivalent to burning 368,331 pounds of coal or 797 barrels of oil, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon footprint calculator.

Just one leg of the president’s Sunday trip to Paris emitted 189 tons of CO2 after travelling 3,855 miles and burning 19,275 gallons of jet fuel, according to Daily Caller News Foundation calculations based on past presidential flights. Obama’s return flight to Washington, D.C., would double the amount of CO2 burned to 378 tons — more than 72 cars driving for a year.

Obama has been criticized for past plane rides in the name of fighting global warming. Earlier this year, Obama flew down to the Everglades for Earth Day and was hammered for potentially damaging the fragile eco-system and costing taxpayers more than $866,000.

World leaders will meet Monday in Paris to kick off the U.N.’s 21st attempt to get countries to sign onto a global agreement to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Obama wants signing a climate treaty to be a part of his presidential legacy, and administration staff have been working tirelessly to convince other countries, like China, to agree to emissions cuts. (Read more from “Obama’s Trip to the UN ‘Global Warming’ Summit Emits More CO2 Than Driving 72 Cars for a Year” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.